It's a bigger bitch when your kid get gets the vaccinations but, for whatever reason, they weren't sufficient to provide immunity. Then the lack of herd immunity - because 20% of your school classmates' parents refused to vaccinate them - gets your kid sick.
We have too many laws, but there needs to be a law to make those 20%'s parents responsible for sickening or killing an innocent kid.
AT&T discontinued the unlimited plan for new customers several months ago, but allowed existing customers to keep it (because, of course, changing the terms of your contract would let you cancel without an early termination penalty).
So the article is neither crap, paid for by Verizon, nor both.
My wife also has an unlimited data plan for her iPhone with AT&T.
Sprint's network, at least around here, is pretty good. Certainly better than AT&T's. That's based on coverage for me (on Virgin Mobile) compared to my wife (on an iPhone) next to me.
I guess I'm one of the people that would like an iPhone but won't give AT&T my money due to their warrantless wiretapping crimes. Alas it doesn't make economic sense for me to get a Verizon phone until my wife is off contract and is willing to switch, since two separate phone plans cost a lot more than a family plan.
The ultimate goal of "competition" is to achieve monopoly status, by eliminating competitors. That is what "competition" means.
Once you eliminate your competitors, you can do whatever you want to the market.
Not at all. My company created a product platform. The first thing we did was establish an industry standards body and release the platform to its members. In this way we created our own competition.
Of course, we determined that customers are more likely to adopt a platform if they don't consider it "vendor lock in". And while we don't eliminate competitors, we certainly strive to dominate them. There's nothing wrong with being a big fish in a small pond we dug and filled and stocked ourselves. But you most certainly can buy into and use the platform without paying us a cent.
I prefer to call the latter "syfy" (pronounced Siffey). Though note that neither group properly includes blatant action films with a somewhat technological prefix. Resident Evil is no more sci-fi or syfy than is Night of the Living Dead, regardless of the genetics / technology aspects of the former.
Does it have to be music I ripped from a CD in iTunes then? Why would iTunes care? All my Pink Floyd stuff was ripped years ago on an old PC before iTunes existed, then imported much much later so I could sync to my iPod.
I'll have to look at it tonight, but if really only works with CDs ripped locally then it's a stupid, stupid implementation of an otherwise useful feature.
There are individual tracks for movements in symphonies as well, but that doesn't mean they are intended in every case to be played separately. There's nothing wrong with Pink Floyd arguing that The Wall is one continuous piece of music, where portions of the melody have been labeled for easy reference.
That said, there's also nothing wrong with a fan choosing to listen to just three continuous songs instead of the whole album. Heck, it's okay with a fan to just like the first 30 seconds of "Money" followed by a mashup of "Eclipse" and "Gunner's Dream". It's not like Pink Floyd can stop fans from cutting up the music at non-song boundaries any more than they can stop at song boundaries. And yet no one here is advocating that EMI be able to sell half- or quarter-tracks.
Why slap together a greatest hits or box set package?
To be fair, Pink Floyd compilations are reengineered to play as a continuous stream too. They do put in the effort that makes a "slap together" moniker a disservice. Otherwise I agree with your points.
Wouldn't getting together for the rock aid concern a few years back have already cost them their integrity, since they said they'd never do that? Or releasing several albums after Roger Waters left the band and vehemently disagreed that the remaining member(s) could/should continue under the old name? Or did they lose their integrity when they dumped Syd and let Roger take over?
Not one song, no, but there are song segments that work really well. "Us and Them" - "Any Colour You Like" - "Brain Damage" - "Eclipse" works wonderfully without prepending them with the first six songs of the album. The same can be said for "The Show Must Go On" - "In the Flesh" - "Run Like Hell" from the Wall. No in neither case does it tell the whole story conveyed by the original album, but they do work as musical pieces telling part of the story. In that sense it's not much different from a symphony; they are designed to be played from start to finish, but orchestras often play just the overture or just a subset of movements in lieu of the entire piece.
All that said, it bugs me to no end that I still can't group songs together in iTunes to only play as a unit during random play. I've tried Groups without success, and the only other option I've found would be to concatenate the songs together into one. Why isn't there a flag that lets me group songs, such that 1) only the first song of the group can be selected at random, and 2) if the first song is selected, the next X songs play in order following, then 3) the playlist continues randomly? Maybe there could be a way for me to add a playlist to a playlist, whereas the outer playlist is randomized but the inner one could be set to play in fixed order?
Such an option wouldn't just apply to Pink Floyd. There are plenty of other song pairs or song sets from other artists that should be played only in sequence like that - such as symphonies as mentioned above. Of course I can make a playlist with just those songs, or play directly from the artist/album, but the same could be said in lieu of all random playback support.
If you consider holding off and resisting for years to be greedy cowards, aren't all other musicians alive today even greedier and more cowardly? In other words, doesn't that make Pink Floyd members the least greedy and least cowardly, at least for musicians?
In fact, holding money in anything (even gold) is gambling that whatever that thing is won't suddenly depreciate in value through no action of yours.
Indeed. Ultimately you need that money for basic sustenance above all else. I'm would expect people who cannot trust the market to be consistent in those beliefs, and also not trust the local supermarket to have food to sell on demand, but also not trust their house to resist fire. The only sustenance that isn't gambling is fat stored on your body, then a large, slightly riskier stock in your secret hidden bunker.
In short, money in your pocket is worth more to you than money in someone company's bank account.
That's a pretty arbitrary statement. Is a nickel in your pocket worth more than $100 in some company's bank account? What about a penny vs $300? Yes there are risks if the company loses the cash, gets sued, etc., as you say, but the odds of those things happening are pretty low, while the odds of me finding someone to buy a share of my Apple stock are pretty high. And anyway, aren't there risks if a pickpocket or thief takes your penny?
You're saying that things have to be tangible and in your control to have greater value, right? By your line of reasoning you can't trust anything you haven't already consumed - food eaten is more valuable than food held in the cupboards, which is more valuable than food at the store. The store could sell out, your house could burn down, but fat stocks on your body are safe.
My stock portfolio is doing just fine, too, thanks for asking.
For me, melting down the content to its core and taking short, detailed notes *by hand* was the way I learned. I never even looked at the notes again. It wasn't necessary. If I didn't write it down, though, I usually couldn't remember it.
That's me though. Others learn differently. Some people may need to take notes but don't learn by hand writing - indeed it could be a cumbersome distraction. Laptops allow them to learn. So be it. Others like you may not need to take any notes at all. Fortunately all these methods are pretty well compatible as long as people use some basic courtesy.
Yeah, it's not like those types of people are going to rush in to get the seats in the front row. There's plenty of space for those who want to learn to sit at the front of the class.
The only time I've ever really had a problem was in classes with assigned seating (in high school, not college), where I was stuck at the back.
But let's ban them because writing offers better recall and less personal distractions.
Be careful. I totally agree for me. I took reams of notes in all my classes. Then I never looked at them again. Yet, when it would come time for exams, I could remember the things I wrote down.
I don't know that all people learn like that though. Others may not learn through writing, and indeed if writing is too cumbersome it could distract some from the lecture. Let's not make blanket policies about the best way to learn when it's probably not universal, and the multiple options don't detract from each other.
Besides, if the screensaver a row ahead of you is a distraction, move up to the front row. Duh. You can hear better anyway, and you're more likely to be able to interact with the professor, getting your questions asked and answered.
From where did you copy and paste this drivel? Do you somehow think private insurers don't do this already? You actually have the gall to claim (via cut and paste) that insurance companies have more money because they can take out loans, while governments can't?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, 30kbps for 15.5 straight days is about 5GB. So even at that pitiful rate you can exceed this new cap.
While you are correct, you should also take into account interest payments on the debt, which are not a "program" and also not able to be cut.
$663.7 billion + $677.95 billion + $413.95 billion = $1755.6 billion $2,217 billion
It's a bigger bitch when your kid get gets the vaccinations but, for whatever reason, they weren't sufficient to provide immunity. Then the lack of herd immunity - because 20% of your school classmates' parents refused to vaccinate them - gets your kid sick.
We have too many laws, but there needs to be a law to make those 20%'s parents responsible for sickening or killing an innocent kid.
Last week, this hoopla made us a little stronger, and even more determined to fight for the truth about what's happening to our kids.
Funny, when I read this I skipped the word "for". And suddenly it made sense.
AT&T discontinued the unlimited plan for new customers several months ago, but allowed existing customers to keep it (because, of course, changing the terms of your contract would let you cancel without an early termination penalty).
So the article is neither crap, paid for by Verizon, nor both.
My wife also has an unlimited data plan for her iPhone with AT&T.
Sprint's network, at least around here, is pretty good. Certainly better than AT&T's. That's based on coverage for me (on Virgin Mobile) compared to my wife (on an iPhone) next to me.
I guess I'm one of the people that would like an iPhone but won't give AT&T my money due to their warrantless wiretapping crimes. Alas it doesn't make economic sense for me to get a Verizon phone until my wife is off contract and is willing to switch, since two separate phone plans cost a lot more than a family plan.
The ultimate goal of "competition" is to achieve monopoly status, by eliminating competitors. That is what "competition" means.
Once you eliminate your competitors, you can do whatever you want to the market.
Not at all. My company created a product platform. The first thing we did was establish an industry standards body and release the platform to its members. In this way we created our own competition.
Of course, we determined that customers are more likely to adopt a platform if they don't consider it "vendor lock in". And while we don't eliminate competitors, we certainly strive to dominate them. There's nothing wrong with being a big fish in a small pond we dug and filled and stocked ourselves. But you most certainly can buy into and use the platform without paying us a cent.
I prefer to call the latter "syfy" (pronounced Siffey). Though note that neither group properly includes blatant action films with a somewhat technological prefix. Resident Evil is no more sci-fi or syfy than is Night of the Living Dead, regardless of the genetics / technology aspects of the former.
Does it have to be music I ripped from a CD in iTunes then? Why would iTunes care? All my Pink Floyd stuff was ripped years ago on an old PC before iTunes existed, then imported much much later so I could sync to my iPod.
I'll have to look at it tonight, but if really only works with CDs ripped locally then it's a stupid, stupid implementation of an otherwise useful feature.
Apple has DRM?
There are individual tracks for movements in symphonies as well, but that doesn't mean they are intended in every case to be played separately. There's nothing wrong with Pink Floyd arguing that The Wall is one continuous piece of music, where portions of the melody have been labeled for easy reference.
That said, there's also nothing wrong with a fan choosing to listen to just three continuous songs instead of the whole album. Heck, it's okay with a fan to just like the first 30 seconds of "Money" followed by a mashup of "Eclipse" and "Gunner's Dream". It's not like Pink Floyd can stop fans from cutting up the music at non-song boundaries any more than they can stop at song boundaries. And yet no one here is advocating that EMI be able to sell half- or quarter-tracks.
Why slap together a greatest hits or box set package?
To be fair, Pink Floyd compilations are reengineered to play as a continuous stream too. They do put in the effort that makes a "slap together" moniker a disservice. Otherwise I agree with your points.
Wouldn't getting together for the rock aid concern a few years back have already cost them their integrity, since they said they'd never do that? Or releasing several albums after Roger Waters left the band and vehemently disagreed that the remaining member(s) could/should continue under the old name? Or did they lose their integrity when they dumped Syd and let Roger take over?
Not one song, no, but there are song segments that work really well. "Us and Them" - "Any Colour You Like" - "Brain Damage" - "Eclipse" works wonderfully without prepending them with the first six songs of the album. The same can be said for "The Show Must Go On" - "In the Flesh" - "Run Like Hell" from the Wall. No in neither case does it tell the whole story conveyed by the original album, but they do work as musical pieces telling part of the story. In that sense it's not much different from a symphony; they are designed to be played from start to finish, but orchestras often play just the overture or just a subset of movements in lieu of the entire piece.
All that said, it bugs me to no end that I still can't group songs together in iTunes to only play as a unit during random play. I've tried Groups without success, and the only other option I've found would be to concatenate the songs together into one. Why isn't there a flag that lets me group songs, such that 1) only the first song of the group can be selected at random, and 2) if the first song is selected, the next X songs play in order following, then 3) the playlist continues randomly? Maybe there could be a way for me to add a playlist to a playlist, whereas the outer playlist is randomized but the inner one could be set to play in fixed order?
Such an option wouldn't just apply to Pink Floyd. There are plenty of other song pairs or song sets from other artists that should be played only in sequence like that - such as symphonies as mentioned above. Of course I can make a playlist with just those songs, or play directly from the artist/album, but the same could be said in lieu of all random playback support.
If you consider holding off and resisting for years to be greedy cowards, aren't all other musicians alive today even greedier and more cowardly? In other words, doesn't that make Pink Floyd members the least greedy and least cowardly, at least for musicians?
In fact, holding money in anything (even gold) is gambling that whatever that thing is won't suddenly depreciate in value through no action of yours.
Indeed. Ultimately you need that money for basic sustenance above all else. I'm would expect people who cannot trust the market to be consistent in those beliefs, and also not trust the local supermarket to have food to sell on demand, but also not trust their house to resist fire. The only sustenance that isn't gambling is fat stored on your body, then a large, slightly riskier stock in your secret hidden bunker.
In short, money in your pocket is worth more to you than money in someone company's bank account.
That's a pretty arbitrary statement. Is a nickel in your pocket worth more than $100 in some company's bank account? What about a penny vs $300? Yes there are risks if the company loses the cash, gets sued, etc., as you say, but the odds of those things happening are pretty low, while the odds of me finding someone to buy a share of my Apple stock are pretty high. And anyway, aren't there risks if a pickpocket or thief takes your penny?
You're saying that things have to be tangible and in your control to have greater value, right? By your line of reasoning you can't trust anything you haven't already consumed - food eaten is more valuable than food held in the cupboards, which is more valuable than food at the store. The store could sell out, your house could burn down, but fat stocks on your body are safe.
My stock portfolio is doing just fine, too, thanks for asking.
But to everyone else at the meeting he might as well be checking his email, posting on FB or writing a novel.
They probably are. But if they still contribute as required does it matter?
For me, melting down the content to its core and taking short, detailed notes *by hand* was the way I learned. I never even looked at the notes again. It wasn't necessary. If I didn't write it down, though, I usually couldn't remember it.
That's me though. Others learn differently. Some people may need to take notes but don't learn by hand writing - indeed it could be a cumbersome distraction. Laptops allow them to learn. So be it. Others like you may not need to take any notes at all. Fortunately all these methods are pretty well compatible as long as people use some basic courtesy.
Yeah, it's not like those types of people are going to rush in to get the seats in the front row. There's plenty of space for those who want to learn to sit at the front of the class.
The only time I've ever really had a problem was in classes with assigned seating (in high school, not college), where I was stuck at the back.
But let's ban them because writing offers better recall and less personal distractions.
Be careful. I totally agree for me. I took reams of notes in all my classes. Then I never looked at them again. Yet, when it would come time for exams, I could remember the things I wrote down.
I don't know that all people learn like that though. Others may not learn through writing, and indeed if writing is too cumbersome it could distract some from the lecture. Let's not make blanket policies about the best way to learn when it's probably not universal, and the multiple options don't detract from each other.
Besides, if the screensaver a row ahead of you is a distraction, move up to the front row. Duh. You can hear better anyway, and you're more likely to be able to interact with the professor, getting your questions asked and answered.
So was the horse and buggy, and the abacus industry.
What is it with people that think that if someone has a problem with a gay person or even the gay life style that they must be a homophobe?
Well because that's pretty much the definition of the word.
From where did you copy and paste this drivel? Do you somehow think private insurers don't do this already? You actually have the gall to claim (via cut and paste) that insurance companies have more money because they can take out loans, while governments can't?