Even back when iPhones were the only real smartphone in town, I held off because I didn't ever want to to business with AT&T again. The reason I resisted the Apple siren song was because AT&T service sucks, and they have no respect whatsoever for customers.
I was glad I had when the Nexus One came along, because I think it's better than an iPhone anyway, of course. I've also been very happy with T-Mobile's service. Now I see the Death Star approaching, and I know my happy little world is probably doomed.
It happens, and it's difficult to notice if the typo is also a valid word. My two comments are in complete agreement though, so you're misreading as well as mistyping.
Or he just doesn't care, because it's only a tiny minority who doubt his citizenship, and they wouldn't be convinced by anything; they'd just claim whatever document he supplied was faked. The word you want is "unredacted" not "underacted" BTW.
He's just not spending the inordinate amount of time it would take to personally convince every birther out there that what he says is true - especially since there's probably simply no possible evidence that would satisfy some of them, they'd just say he has the resources to fake it now.
There's already been plenty of evidence produced that the man was born in Hawaii, more than enough to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone but a conspiracy theorist, and he has more important stuff to get on with.
It wasn't "What does the government do perfectly?" It was "What does the government do better than private industry?"
.
If you seriously think that BP would have done a better job of protecting the environment absent the EPA, or that fewer rapes would occur without any police, or that less justice would be served without any legal system, or that Microsoft would have been less monopolistic in the absence of government... well, you must be taking some non-FDA-approved drugs.
Protecting the environment. Providing police protection to people without money.. hell, providing damn near anything to people without money. Providing impartial justice - the government doesn't always do it well, but better than private enterprise. Managing large systems like the interstate highways, whose scope is beyond what any individual private enterprise has an interest in supporting, but which nevertheless support the common good. Overseeing dangers to public heath - organizations like the FDA, USDA, MMS and so forth simply would not exist if government didn't, and the degree to which they work is in inverse proportion to the amount of influence private profit-seeking entities have over them. Providing universal standards and accreditations. Preventing private monopolies, which are a natural outcome of uncontrolled markets. .
Actually, there is a way to cancel government services. It involves getting enough people to agree they aren't needed, and supporting candidates for office who will cancel those services. You simply can't do it on an individual basis, because a properly designed democratic government serves the people, not persons. There have been services provided by government in the past which no longer are.
If you want to see what a country looks like without a government, I understand Somalia is pretty close to being an example of just that.
They are all giant douches, is there really a need to find out if one is a bigger one then the other? Have we really resorted to just picking the lesser douche?
The idea that individuals should have the right to keep and bear arms is an interpretation, not necessarily supported by the text, though. It's an interpretation I find eminently reasonable, but it's not the only possible one.
It's also possible to interpret it as saying that "the people" as a collective (rather than as individuals) have the right to keep and bear arms, to prevent their subjugation by foreign powers. That also fits the facts of the context.
In which case the people of the United States are served by having established a standing army (which we didn't have at the time), with no limit on the weaponry it can keep and bear, commanded by civilians elected by the people.
That's not the interpretation I would favor, but it's legitimate and justifiable by the text. My intent is strictly to show that more than one interpretation is possible.
As it happens my own interpration, and yours, are not binding. The only binding interpretations of what the words mean are the interpretations made by the Judiciary - that's their job, as defined by the Constitution they interpret for us.
No, actually it didn't. The latest upgrade (the one after the one which removes the OtherOS functionality) contains such language, I understand - Ars reported on it. I haven't yet accepted the one which removes OtherOS so I can't speak to that personally, but I'm a person who does read EULAs and I didn't grant Sony any such right.
That said, they probably are legally clear in no longer providing a service, even though their actions amounted to bait and switch - IANAL but they are a big corporation, and nowadays that usually means they can do as they like.
There's enough murk to make it plausible they'd rather settle though; for one thing the fact that they have *now* inserted that language tells me they're not on quite as solid a legal ground as they might like (perhaps, like you, some PHB simply assumed it was there earlier), and ethically they have a lot of people convinced they're being dicks - including people for whom this isn't a personal issue but who may be potential customers now hearing bad things about how Sony treats customers.
I'm not in the habit of recording every ad I watch so I can't prove it of course. However it was certainly well known that it would run Linux, and that was indeed the tipping point that got me to put the money down for the very first generation to hit the stores.
Gosh, I wonder why no one else saw that. Maybe because it's so oversimplified it misses the point entirely?
Yep, that's why. The PS3 was sold as having the functionality to run Linux AND access Playstation Network AND (by implication at least) run all PS3 games.
Keeping the old firmware means that I can't use the Playstation Network, and some new PS3 games will not run on my console.
Sony have retroactively changed the deal so that customers like myself who bought the product on the understanding that it did ALL these things can now only do a subset of them.
In short, they sold me a set of functionalities, took my money for them, then removed some of the functionalities I paid for. Giving me a limited set of choices as to which functionalities I lose doesn't make that right.
Their recent and ongoing "It only does everything" campaign only adds ironic insult to the injury.
"Apple isn't diametrically opposed to freedom. On the contrary, Apple products have generated more freedom than Linux and Android have, combined."
How, exactly? Apple make some nice gear, but unlike attractiveness and ease-of-use, freedom is not an Apple priority. The Apple OSs on their computers and phones, and the hardware they run on, are proprietary and strictly controlled by Apple. How has that generated more freedom than the open source Linux and Android platforms?
There may be advantages as well. My son absolutely rocks at keeping maps in his head, for example, and I suspect that the video games he plays have something to do with that by providing practice at it. (Yes, it translates into moving around in the real world too!)
Be durned, I had an almost identical bug! Mine would always print on Wednesdays even if hard copy was deselected, because the y in Wednesday overflowed. The month and date weren't involved though, your bug is even cooler.
It seems to me that those are the kind of prioritizing decisions your own computer should be making. If I'm running a P2P app and a VoIP app at the same time it's my responsibility to assign a higher niceness to the former, to save my bandwidth for the latter.
You fixed what, the grammatical and typographical correctness of the sentence?
I don't believe I agree with vesuvana, but at least I understood him/her/it.
Hey, I'm just kvetching, I'm not suggesting the technology needs to be abandoned to suit little old me. I don't know how many people are in a similar fix, but it's probably not a significant enough demographic to drive many research dollars into making the effect work for us.
As long as 2D versions are eventually available I'll be happy enough (and if they aren't I'll find me a beer to cry into).
Well, I agree that it would be unreasonable to expect that, and I don't, any more than I expect those durn furriners to quit making movies in languages I can't understand.
(Actually I like a lot of those movies, with the subtitles... and I think it's a pity subtitles or supertitles aren't available in more cinemas for deaf people. Perhaps if viewers are going to have to wear the special glasses anyway they can get that built in to them somehow - that would be a genuine enhancement for the deaf, anyway.)
I was simply pointing out (originally) that there is a problem for some people, myself included, and (subsequently) that there is a difference between an enhancement that can't be fully appreciated by everybody and one which actively makes the experience unpleasant for some viewers. From some of the other comments it seems that 3D is also unpleasant for quite a few normally sighted people, too.
I would still maintain that that is a valid distinction, even if I did oversimplify the presentation. I know color-blindness is rarely total, but the point remains that a color movie generally looks the same as color reality to those so impaired.
As for TV not being enhanced radio, well... that's why we still have radio, yes? I for one would like to hear more radio drama, but the culture has changed, and it's not entirely due to television. There's more radio drama in Europe, for example, or there was when I last lived there (I still cherish my recordings of the original radio series 'Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy).
Anyway, to reiterate, I'm not suggesting a ban on 3D movies or anything ridiculous like that. I'm just expressing a general personal hope that the format doesn't become a de facto standard to the exclusion of normal 2D presentations, and a specific personal hope that this movie is presented in 2D as well on the big screen. I'm a fan of both Ridley Scott and Joe Haldeman, and I'd hate to miss out, that's all.
To a deaf person there is no difference between a talkie and a sound picture (assuming subtitles). To a color-blind person there is no difference between a monochrome film and a color film. However, to me and the OP, the 3D films are not simply unimproved from the 2D, they are actually *worse* because of the supposed enhancement.
Hopefully there will also be a 2D release; I seem to recall that my local cinema showed Bolt in both 2D and 3D (though I didn't actually watch either).
I have amblyopia, so my eyes don't point quite paralell. 3D movies are worse than useless to me, I just get my choice of a blurry distorted image or a splitting headache.
Captcha says reject, which is what these movies make me think.
Slashdot Mirror
Even back when iPhones were the only real smartphone in town, I held off because I didn't ever want to to business with AT&T again. The reason I resisted the Apple siren song was because AT&T service sucks, and they have no respect whatsoever for customers.
I was glad I had when the Nexus One came along, because I think it's better than an iPhone anyway, of course. I've also been very happy with T-Mobile's service. Now I see the Death Star approaching, and I know my happy little world is probably doomed.
It happens, and it's difficult to notice if the typo is also a valid word. My two comments are in complete agreement though, so you're misreading as well as mistyping.
Or he just doesn't care, because it's only a tiny minority who doubt his citizenship, and they wouldn't be convinced by anything; they'd just claim whatever document he supplied was faked. The word you want is "unredacted" not "underacted" BTW.
He's just not spending the inordinate amount of time it would take to personally convince every birther out there that what he says is true - especially since there's probably simply no possible evidence that would satisfy some of them, they'd just say he has the resources to fake it now. There's already been plenty of evidence produced that the man was born in Hawaii, more than enough to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone but a conspiracy theorist, and he has more important stuff to get on with.
If you seriously think that BP would have done a better job of protecting the environment absent the EPA, or that fewer rapes would occur without any police, or that less justice would be served without any legal system, or that Microsoft would have been less monopolistic in the absence of government... well, you must be taking some non-FDA-approved drugs.
.
Actually, there is a way to cancel government services. It involves getting enough people to agree they aren't needed, and supporting candidates for office who will cancel those services. You simply can't do it on an individual basis, because a properly designed democratic government serves the people, not persons. There have been services provided by government in the past which no longer are.
If you want to see what a country looks like without a government, I understand Somalia is pretty close to being an example of just that.
Yes, and yes.
It's also possible to interpret it as saying that "the people" as a collective (rather than as individuals) have the right to keep and bear arms, to prevent their subjugation by foreign powers. That also fits the facts of the context.
In which case the people of the United States are served by having established a standing army (which we didn't have at the time), with no limit on the weaponry it can keep and bear, commanded by civilians elected by the people.
That's not the interpretation I would favor, but it's legitimate and justifiable by the text. My intent is strictly to show that more than one interpretation is possible.
As it happens my own interpration, and yours, are not binding. The only binding interpretations of what the words mean are the interpretations made by the Judiciary - that's their job, as defined by the Constitution they interpret for us.
That said, they probably are legally clear in no longer providing a service, even though their actions amounted to bait and switch - IANAL but they are a big corporation, and nowadays that usually means they can do as they like.
There's enough murk to make it plausible they'd rather settle though; for one thing the fact that they have *now* inserted that language tells me they're not on quite as solid a legal ground as they might like (perhaps, like you, some PHB simply assumed it was there earlier), and ethically they have a lot of people convinced they're being dicks - including people for whom this isn't a personal issue but who may be potential customers now hearing bad things about how Sony treats customers.
I'm not in the habit of recording every ad I watch so I can't prove it of course. However it was certainly well known that it would run Linux, and that was indeed the tipping point that got me to put the money down for the very first generation to hit the stores.
Don't say the precedent wasn't staring you in the face.
Yep, that's why. The PS3 was sold as having the functionality to run Linux AND access Playstation Network AND (by implication at least) run all PS3 games.
Keeping the old firmware means that I can't use the Playstation Network, and some new PS3 games will not run on my console.
Sony have retroactively changed the deal so that customers like myself who bought the product on the understanding that it did ALL these things can now only do a subset of them.
In short, they sold me a set of functionalities, took my money for them, then removed some of the functionalities I paid for. Giving me a limited set of choices as to which functionalities I lose doesn't make that right.
Their recent and ongoing "It only does everything" campaign only adds ironic insult to the injury.
How, exactly? Apple make some nice gear, but unlike attractiveness and ease-of-use, freedom is not an Apple priority. The Apple OSs on their computers and phones, and the hardware they run on, are proprietary and strictly controlled by Apple. How has that generated more freedom than the open source Linux and Android platforms?
There may be advantages as well. My son absolutely rocks at keeping maps in his head, for example, and I suspect that the video games he plays have something to do with that by providing practice at it. (Yes, it translates into moving around in the real world too!)
GO back to the comic book store and do your research properly, or I'll make you hammer your hamster.
Be durned, I had an almost identical bug! Mine would always print on Wednesdays even if hard copy was deselected, because the y in Wednesday overflowed. The month and date weren't involved though, your bug is even cooler.
It seems to me that those are the kind of prioritizing decisions your own computer should be making. If I'm running a P2P app and a VoIP app at the same time it's my responsibility to assign a higher niceness to the former, to save my bandwidth for the latter.
There. I fixed that for you.
You fixed what, the grammatical and typographical correctness of the sentence? I don't believe I agree with vesuvana, but at least I understood him/her/it.
That way project management can finally tell who's concentrating and how hard, just by looking at how high the ping-pong balls are floating.
Hey, I'm just kvetching, I'm not suggesting the technology needs to be abandoned to suit little old me. I don't know how many people are in a similar fix, but it's probably not a significant enough demographic to drive many research dollars into making the effect work for us. As long as 2D versions are eventually available I'll be happy enough (and if they aren't I'll find me a beer to cry into).
(Actually I like a lot of those movies, with the subtitles... and I think it's a pity subtitles or supertitles aren't available in more cinemas for deaf people. Perhaps if viewers are going to have to wear the special glasses anyway they can get that built in to them somehow - that would be a genuine enhancement for the deaf, anyway.)
I was simply pointing out (originally) that there is a problem for some people, myself included, and (subsequently) that there is a difference between an enhancement that can't be fully appreciated by everybody and one which actively makes the experience unpleasant for some viewers. From some of the other comments it seems that 3D is also unpleasant for quite a few normally sighted people, too.
I would still maintain that that is a valid distinction, even if I did oversimplify the presentation. I know color-blindness is rarely total, but the point remains that a color movie generally looks the same as color reality to those so impaired.
As for TV not being enhanced radio, well... that's why we still have radio, yes? I for one would like to hear more radio drama, but the culture has changed, and it's not entirely due to television. There's more radio drama in Europe, for example, or there was when I last lived there (I still cherish my recordings of the original radio series 'Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy).
Anyway, to reiterate, I'm not suggesting a ban on 3D movies or anything ridiculous like that. I'm just expressing a general personal hope that the format doesn't become a de facto standard to the exclusion of normal 2D presentations, and a specific personal hope that this movie is presented in 2D as well on the big screen. I'm a fan of both Ridley Scott and Joe Haldeman, and I'd hate to miss out, that's all.
To a deaf person there is no difference between a talkie and a sound picture (assuming subtitles). To a color-blind person there is no difference between a monochrome film and a color film. However, to me and the OP, the 3D films are not simply unimproved from the 2D, they are actually *worse* because of the supposed enhancement.
Hopefully there will also be a 2D release; I seem to recall that my local cinema showed Bolt in both 2D and 3D (though I didn't actually watch either).
I have amblyopia, so my eyes don't point quite paralell. 3D movies are worse than useless to me, I just get my choice of a blurry distorted image or a splitting headache.
Captcha says reject, which is what these movies make me think.
"zero configuration" so linux for the people that miss the whole point of running linux desktop?
"zero verb" so english for the people that miss the whole point of communicating english language?
If you do it outdoors in the sun, you get a tan() into the bargain!