Why should they replace batteries? Do the toy manufacturers for your kids toys replace the batteries for you?
As for voiding your waranty, the fact that they wouldn't replace it in the first place means that it was in waranty anymore (the waranty is 1 year). If it's not in waranty it doesn't matter if you void it.
What claims? I don't recall Apple ever claiming that you would get X number of years out of your battery. I do recall claims of a 10 hour battery life on a single charge, and I do remember documentation on the battery being rated for about 500 charges, but that's it.
What substandard battery? The batteries are rated for about 500 charges and that's all in the documentation. If you drain your battery completely every day yes, you'll get about a year and a half of use. If you use it less frequently, you'll get more use out of it. Apple made no claims as to the length in years that your battery would last you, they made claims as to how long it would last on a single charge.
Or you could make the class less listening and more doing? My best classes in highschool were the classes where we did lab work and where the teacher not only went over the homework he did assign, but made us work out the problems in class.
The best math class I ever had in highschool was my pre-calc class. At the time we had an 80 minute class (4 subjects per day, rotating). The teacher usualy spent the first 40 minute going over the previous day's homework (which usually ammounted to about 10 problems total) and then spent the next 20 minutes explaining a new concept and the last 20 minutes having us work on the new "homework" and asking questions. In short, we had 20 minutes of lecture and 60 minutes of discussion and work on the problems we did ourselves. Far superior to any other system I've come accross so far.
Not at all. This goes entirely beyond presidential races. The truth is, the president is primarily a figure head these days and it really doesn't matter who's in that seat as long as he's got charisma (see Clinton).
But that's not what matters. The president isnt the one that makes the patriot acts. The president isn't the one who votes to give your rights away to corporations. It's the senators and representatives
How do we expect to be able to begin to hold the president responsible when we can't even hold our own representatives responsible, and they're much easier to get rid of.
It doesn't matter how much the corporations influence the news, everyone I've talked to, whether they've read the thing or not thinks the patriot act is a horrible thing, and yet most of the people that voted for it are still making laws. WHY?
Half the country just reelected the man that put the final signature on the patriot act, and the other half almost elected a man who voted for it to the position of president. WHY?
It can't be corporate influence because as I said, everyone thinks the act is bad. So something else is going on.
You're right. I can't be bothered to spend $50 on a new drive when I can spend that same $50 on a new game, which comes on CDs, which can be read by my CD drive.
Because where sniper games are concerned, no one cares who the character is, because the player imerses themselves in that character. Notice the games with the ubar chested women in scant pieces of fabric are almost exclusively third person games.
No. I know it. My question is, why do we allow it? I don't care how much money a corporation or even 100 corporations give Senator Buyout, he doesn't get elected if you don't vote for him. And if he starts bypassing the will of the people after he's elected, run him out of office. We get up in arms when a cop accidently shoots a kid and demand the cop be fired and sent to jail but when a senator votes on a law that will affect the lives of millions of people without reading it and without regard to his constituents we call it politics as usual.
Fact: it was impossible for anyone other than the authors of the Patriot Act to read it. There was no time. It was rammed through Congress at a time when questioning the content, even if there was time to read it, would have been considered unamerican. Perhaps you'd like to forget that little detail.
And perhaps you forget that little detail about having elected your representatives to:
a) represent you
b) look out for your interests in the laws that pass.
why anyone who voted for the patriot act and any one you says they didn't read it before voting for it would be reelected is entirely beyond my comprehension. We elected these people to do a job and they didn't, why haven't we fired them?
Also, I have tons of free diskspace left and 2 gigs of RAM. There's no reason anything should be streaming off my DVD. Drop the entire contents on the HD, and stream it from there.
No no no no no no no. I'm personally sick of game installs that take up so much room on my drive. Give me the option to chose how I want to do it (old lucas arts games anyone?) and if I choose to install the whole thing to my disk, don't require the fucking game disk.
Not neccesarily. There are secure wipe programs that instead of just doing random data wipes actually write over it with the temp files on your computer.
You obviously know nothing of PGP's secure wipe features.
Furthermore, if you have evidence that you have made impossible for authorities to gather, for all intents and purposes it is destroyed. A shredder doesnt' destroy documents, but piecing it together is all but impossible, hence it's considered destroyed.
Without having the orginal case and just the scurrent decision at hand, there does appear to be evidence that he used the encryption program:
the "evidence tends to show that an encrypting capability was employed by the Defendant;" and there are "occasions that indicate that there was advance notice of that so called surprising and thorough search warrant" executed at appellant's home.
furthermore:
We are not persuaded by appellant's arguments. The record shows that appellant took a large number of pictures of S.M. with a digital camera, and that he would upload those pictures onto his computer soon after taking them.
yet the files a nowhere to be found, hence the first statement and the second make the existance of PGP RELLEVANT to the state's case.
and note that nothing about PGP is being used to imply his guilt in anything directly. Merely that the existance of PGP and his computer usage patters are relevant to the state's case.
1) Patriot Act does nothing of the sort. No warrants or searches are granted without court oversight.
2) They already had a warrant, the guy has already been convicted. This is an appeal. the fact that they are appealing on something like this shows that they had a warrant and everything was in order.
And in a court, you can say something along the lines of:
"We have evidence, A, B, C and D. The reason we believe we don't have E the smoking gun is we believe the defendant destroyed E. We believe this because he owns this device G which can be used to destroy E."
In this case, there doesn't have to be encrypted files, PGP can do secure wipes.
However, it is possible in a criminal case to say:
"We have this evidence, this evidence, this evidence and this. The only reason we don't have the smoking gun is because we believe it was destroyed. We further believe it was destroyed by the defendant because he had access to X tool which can be used to destroy this smoking gun."
No. You can find another place to publish. A prisoner is specifically denied that option. And in the case of crapflooding, people who want to hear what you have to say have the option of wading through the crap, or filtering it.
A prisoner can yell out the windows, and people who want to hear you always have the option of:
a) visiting
b) going to jail themselves
Yes. But that's entirely different from whether or not someone else can silence you. The analogy with prison simply does not work.
No one is silencing you in prison, you can still yell at the top of your lungs all you want.
Provided the marching band was scheduled of course. However, breech of peace is still law and people do expect the government to keep the streets reasonably clear. Were someone in a mask constantly running marching bands down the street every day all day, you can bet your ass the government would be stepping in.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes you can buy a replacement:
http://www.ipodbatteryfaq.com/#2
If apple isn't replacing your battery, it's out of waranty to begin with so what do you care if you void the waranty using some third party kit?
Why should they replace batteries? Do the toy manufacturers for your kids toys replace the batteries for you?
As for voiding your waranty, the fact that they wouldn't replace it in the first place means that it was in waranty anymore (the waranty is 1 year). If it's not in waranty it doesn't matter if you void it.
What claims? I don't recall Apple ever claiming that you would get X number of years out of your battery. I do recall claims of a 10 hour battery life on a single charge, and I do remember documentation on the battery being rated for about 500 charges, but that's it.
What substandard battery? The batteries are rated for about 500 charges and that's all in the documentation. If you drain your battery completely every day yes, you'll get about a year and a half of use. If you use it less frequently, you'll get more use out of it. Apple made no claims as to the length in years that your battery would last you, they made claims as to how long it would last on a single charge.
Or you could make the class less listening and more doing? My best classes in highschool were the classes where we did lab work and where the teacher not only went over the homework he did assign, but made us work out the problems in class.
The best math class I ever had in highschool was my pre-calc class. At the time we had an 80 minute class (4 subjects per day, rotating). The teacher usualy spent the first 40 minute going over the previous day's homework (which usually ammounted to about 10 problems total) and then spent the next 20 minutes explaining a new concept and the last 20 minutes having us work on the new "homework" and asking questions. In short, we had 20 minutes of lecture and 60 minutes of discussion and work on the problems we did ourselves. Far superior to any other system I've come accross so far.
Not at all. This goes entirely beyond presidential races. The truth is, the president is primarily a figure head these days and it really doesn't matter who's in that seat as long as he's got charisma (see Clinton).
But that's not what matters. The president isnt the one that makes the patriot acts. The president isn't the one who votes to give your rights away to corporations. It's the senators and representatives
How do we expect to be able to begin to hold the president responsible when we can't even hold our own representatives responsible, and they're much easier to get rid of.
It doesn't matter how much the corporations influence the news, everyone I've talked to, whether they've read the thing or not thinks the patriot act is a horrible thing, and yet most of the people that voted for it are still making laws. WHY?
Half the country just reelected the man that put the final signature on the patriot act, and the other half almost elected a man who voted for it to the position of president. WHY?
It can't be corporate influence because as I said, everyone thinks the act is bad. So something else is going on.
You're right. I can't be bothered to spend $50 on a new drive when I can spend that same $50 on a new game, which comes on CDs, which can be read by my CD drive.
Because where sniper games are concerned, no one cares who the character is, because the player imerses themselves in that character. Notice the games with the ubar chested women in scant pieces of fabric are almost exclusively third person games.
No. I know it. My question is, why do we allow it? I don't care how much money a corporation or even 100 corporations give Senator Buyout, he doesn't get elected if you don't vote for him. And if he starts bypassing the will of the people after he's elected, run him out of office. We get up in arms when a cop accidently shoots a kid and demand the cop be fired and sent to jail but when a senator votes on a law that will affect the lives of millions of people without reading it and without regard to his constituents we call it politics as usual.
Fact: it was impossible for anyone other than the authors of the Patriot Act to read it. There was no time. It was rammed through Congress at a time when questioning the content, even if there was time to read it, would have been considered unamerican. Perhaps you'd like to forget that little detail.
And perhaps you forget that little detail about having elected your representatives to:
a) represent you
b) look out for your interests in the laws that pass.
why anyone who voted for the patriot act and any one you says they didn't read it before voting for it would be reelected is entirely beyond my comprehension. We elected these people to do a job and they didn't, why haven't we fired them?
Also, I have tons of free diskspace left and 2 gigs of RAM. There's no reason anything should be streaming off my DVD. Drop the entire contents on the HD, and stream it from there.
No no no no no no no. I'm personally sick of game installs that take up so much room on my drive. Give me the option to chose how I want to do it (old lucas arts games anyone?) and if I choose to install the whole thing to my disk, don't require the fucking game disk.
How do you erode the rule of law where the law does not attempt to rule?
Not neccesarily. There are secure wipe programs that instead of just doing random data wipes actually write over it with the temp files on your computer.
You obviously know nothing of PGP's secure wipe features.
Furthermore, if you have evidence that you have made impossible for authorities to gather, for all intents and purposes it is destroyed. A shredder doesnt' destroy documents, but piecing it together is all but impossible, hence it's considered destroyed.
Without having the orginal case and just the scurrent decision at hand, there does appear to be evidence that he used the encryption program:
/ 0505/opa040381-0503.htm
the "evidence tends to show that an encrypting capability was employed by the Defendant;" and there are "occasions that indicate that there was advance notice of that so called surprising and thorough search warrant" executed at appellant's home.
furthermore:
We are not persuaded by appellant's arguments. The record shows that appellant took a large number of pictures of S.M. with a digital camera, and that he would upload those pictures onto his computer soon after taking them.
yet the files a nowhere to be found, hence the first statement and the second make the existance of PGP RELLEVANT to the state's case.
You can read the whole decision here:
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub
and note that nothing about PGP is being used to imply his guilt in anything directly. Merely that the existance of PGP and his computer usage patters are relevant to the state's case.
sigh,
1) Patriot Act does nothing of the sort. No warrants or searches are granted without court oversight.
2) They already had a warrant, the guy has already been convicted. This is an appeal. the fact that they are appealing on something like this shows that they had a warrant and everything was in order.
Sigh. If you would RTFA, you would note that the police did have more than he had encryption software. They had a witness willing to testify in court.
And in a court, you can say something along the lines of:
"We have evidence, A, B, C and D. The reason we believe we don't have E the smoking gun is we believe the defendant destroyed E. We believe this because he owns this device G which can be used to destroy E."
In this case, there doesn't have to be encrypted files, PGP can do secure wipes.
They had more evidence. Namely a witness willing to testify in court. The encryption software was icing on the cake.
However, it is possible in a criminal case to say:
"We have this evidence, this evidence, this evidence and this. The only reason we don't have the smoking gun is because we believe it was destroyed. We further believe it was destroyed by the defendant because he had access to X tool which can be used to destroy this smoking gun."
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
I believe having a whitness willing to testify in court to your illegal activities is grounds to make seach and siezure reasonable.
No. You can find another place to publish. A prisoner is specifically denied that option. And in the case of crapflooding, people who want to hear what you have to say have the option of wading through the crap, or filtering it.
A prisoner can yell out the windows, and people who want to hear you always have the option of:
a) visiting
b) going to jail themselves
Yes. But that's entirely different from whether or not someone else can silence you. The analogy with prison simply does not work.
No one is silencing you in prison, you can still yell at the top of your lungs all you want.
Provided the marching band was scheduled of course. However, breech of peace is still law and people do expect the government to keep the streets reasonably clear. Were someone in a mask constantly running marching bands down the street every day all day, you can bet your ass the government would be stepping in.
Much like someone crapfodding or DoSing your site can shut down your ability to share your ideas with anyone but yourself right?
I thought the arguement was you don't have a right to be heard.