In the wake of iRiver's much-maligned (and delayed) attempts to update their proprietary firmware, this is excellent news.
I bought my iHP-120 about a year ago. It came with new newest firmware availible at the time.
My only gripes were:
inability to erase files
inability to record from the radio
The first item has been fixed via a new firmware release that I installed last week.
That's it. I think it's a GREAT mp3 player.
It has all sorts of EQ, sounds effects, does playlists, looping, records to mp3 or wav from 3 different sources, etc etc.
To me, there's only one thing missing.
Of course I welcome the idea of an open firmware, because one could create all kind of cool toys with it, a portable audio generator (sinewave, whitenoise, digital zero), for example.
Anyways, I guess my point is that the firmware ISN'T crappy. I think iriver has produced a very nice device.
Raise taxes? I can't believe people put up with taxes as high as they are!!
What's funny about this attitude is that you're not considering what the taxes are being used for. What if a $50 increase in taxes can lead to a $100 decrease in your health insurance costs?
You're basically coming at this with a "taxes are bad attitude". (Which is a silly attitude to have.)
A much more reasonable stance would be to support only government expenditures that are "worth" more than they cost.
I make about the same as you.
I honestly have no problem with paying the amount of taxes that I currently pay, I just think I should be getting MORE FOR MY MONEY. The thing I disagree with is not that my money is being taken, but that it's being pissed away on no-bid contracts for Halliburton.
There are so many BETTER things we could be doing with that money right now. Health care, education, investing in our national infrastructure, paying off the debt, cleaning up our environment, etc. The list goes on and on are they're all things that could ACTUALLY provide more value than cost (unlike supply-side silliness).
Right, because we shouldn't be charging the people that use the roads to maintain them.
Hold it right there!
That argument only works if gasoline tax is the only possible way for the gov't to pay for roads. It's not. (Anyways, we ALL use the roads.....or have all your pizzas been delivered by helicopter?)
I just don't see how it's regressive to tax gas.
It's pretty basic economics. A gasoline tax is about as regressive as a tax can get (in practice). If my income doubled tomorrow, my gas usage would stay exactly the same. As a result, I would be paying a lower proportion of my income toward gasline tax. I have to wonder if you actually understand what a regressive tax is, if you believe that a gasoline tax is not regressive.
Now here comes the important part:
Regressive taxes are bad because the poor have to use up a larger proportion of their income to pay them than the rich do.
The second two I can understand. But why the fuck would anyone in their right mind ever tailgate? It's a) dangerous, b) annoying, and c) doesn't get you there any faster. So what's the point?
Not only that it actually makes it harder to pass the person you're tailgating.
If you follow at a safe distance, you can anticipate your passing opportunity and do most of your acceleration while you're in the right lane. This minimizes size of the gap yo need in the left lane in order to pass someone.
I always laugh when I see some idiot tailgater who can't pass because he's tailgating. They actaully end up getting there SLOWER because the end up glued to the back bumper of the first person they find who's going slower than them.
BECAUSE THEY"RE STATING UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THEY ARE THE OWNERS OF THE WORKS IN QUESTION.
After all, the false positives won't hurt the them, just the poor bastard whose ISP gets such a letter and cuts the service.
Unless that poor bastard just happens to be a large company/ rich individual who doesn't take kindl;y to stupid legal threats. It seems like it would be pretty easy to sue for damages since they're forcing the takedown of a website.
It often has very little to do with *you*.
It quickly becomes your problem if you have done business with someone else and *they* are stupid enough to leave stuff in plain view.
It would be nice if we knew that everyone we did business with was intelligent enough not to do this, but realistically we probably can't
This is why the credit card system should be scrapped ASAP.
The technology exists to do MUCH better. Imageine not having to trust a pizza place with access to your credit card fot the next N years! Imagine not having to worry what they do with their records.
Sounds sensible doesn't it?
This sounds like one of those arguments between those who think that the "free" part of the GPL refers to cost ("free beer") and those who realize that it has nothing at all to do with cost and everything to do with freedom ("free speech"). This isn't at all going into a grey area or even into any of the remotely confusing parts of the GPL.
Simply put, the GPL does not prohibit charging for binaries.
But what it does prohibit is giving people source code that WON'T COMPLIE TO PRODUCE THE BINARY YOU JUST GAVE THEM.
The way I understand it issue is NOT that they are chargin money for the binaries, it's that the source code for the windows version is not being made availible.
They don't need any "okay" from ANY of the code contributors unless they change the license.. and they aren't in this case.
As I undestand it, they are violating the liscense by not releasing releasing the proper source code. The ONLY way they could do that is if EVERYONE involded reliscensed the code under a new liscense.
Nope, it's door number 3. He admits he doesn't own all the code, but merely promises to remove and rewrite himself any code he didn't write if the programer asks.
That's still door #2.
Think about it. Say I download some big new hollywood movie and start selling it for $20 a pop. Then I say, if anyone involved in this movie complains, I'll stop selling it.
I'm a violating their copyright?
Fuck yes it am. I'm distributing that movie without the rights to do so.
It's the same thing here.
Any code this guy got under the GPL license can ONLY be redistributed under the GPL.
He's violating copyright law plain and simple. He simply CANNOT redistribute other people's GPL'ed code under a different liscense without breaking copyright law. He may be trying to be "nice" about it, but he's clearly in violation of the GPL.
Anybody whose code he's using can sue him, and that offer is just going to show that he was KNOWINGLY violating their copyright, and just hoping nobody would find out and complain.
A billing error can be resolved directly with the company.
Maybe.
You're stating as fact what is really only just a possibility. MAYBE the company will work with you or MAYBE you'll have to take them to court.
I'm sure my friend isn't the only person who's had problems with a certain cellphone provider trying to bill her for "account maintance fees" after both her contract had expired and she had cancelled the service.
The fact is that most people will simply ignore the bills instead of taking some responsibility.
Of course you can only call them up and spend 20 minutes on hold so many times before you get sick of it.
Where's the responsibility there? Some times the only way to get these asshole's attention is to threaten then with the L-word, otherwise they just might sell your bullshit "debt" to a collection agency.
Parents are to blame, not heartless corporations (this time).
Actually, it's both.
I always thought bankruptcy was a great concept for just this reason. Yes, a person should have a certain obligation to fulfill their debts, but companies also shouldn't go around loaning people more money than they could ever pay back.
Sure in an idea world, people would never make mistakes, but that's not reality and I think it would be pretty freakin evil to make a person pay for the next sixty years for a mistake they made at 18.
Yeah, that'll work. Like noone can tell the race of a "Sanjay Kumar", a "Mohammed Sayyef", a "Hanako Mizugawa", or a "Natasha Perkhounkova".
Did you stop and really think about what you suggested before you posted it?
Sure they can, but I didn't suggest that removing the "race" field was the ultimate solution to all discrimination. You're missing the point.
Removing the race field wasn't suggest as a full solution to the problem, but as obvious evidence of the problem. A college should not be asking what race you are. That should automatically throw up red flags, and be dealt with. It's an amazingly blatant form of discrimination, yet noting gets done about it.
What I have illustrated to the grandparent poster is that his view belied an underlying sex bias.
No you haven't.
Maybe he said what he said out of sexism, and maybe he said it because he was legitimately concerned that discrimination was going on.
You didn't illustrate anything because you don't frickin know what's inside his head. There's a very reasonable explanation for what he said that is NOT sexism.
Your reply is exactly the kind of B.S. I expected. You can't even step back and admit that asking if this woman got the job because she is a woman could have a non-sexist motivation.
Let me repeat this one more time for the extra dense: Asking if sexism is occurring does not automaticlly make you sexist.
Since that's the ONLY justification you're giving for calling some poor person sexist, you're really just smearing them without any reasonable support. That sucks, and it's a shame that you don't take calling someone sexist more seriously.
Your gender bias has already presented itself. An equally valid question would have been "has MIT selected this person because they are a MAN" (assuming they were a man).
That's total nonsense. What you saying is that asking any questions about possible sexism/racism makes YOU sexist/racist. That's simply retarded.
In order to actually DO anything sexism we must be able to have a sane, logical discouse on the matter. Asking the question "Did MIT appoint a women in order to appear more attractive to female students?" is legitimate and is NOT sexist. It's a shame that people like you are so willing to throw labels like "sexist" around so lightly. The grandparent's post wasn't sexist, it just wasn't what you wanted to hear.
That's a huge problem today. If a woman hears something come out of a man's mouth on the topic of gender discrimination that she doesn't like, she can cry "sexism" even where none exists, and somehow people still take her seriously. (As I write this your comment is +4 Insightful.)
But hey, I'm not going to call you sexist for believing that even though this president doesn't meet the same criteria as past presidents (Engineering background being that it is MIT you know), that gender couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. Myopic and unwilling to see things you don't want to maybe, but not necessarily sexist.
How do you enforce this? With EEOCs? Jail time? Bullet to the head?
The same we enforce all the other laws that relate to how a company operates. Duh.
If you ignore it, it's the functional equivalent of #1 in the grandparent.
Obviously you won't ignore it.
If you enforce it, it's the functional equivalent of #2 in the grandparent.
No more that using the police to catch murders is still "relying on human nature".
In other words, no solution at all.
Actually, it's a quite reasonable solution, you're just coming up with issues that are non-issues, and only by making ridiculous assumptions like:
"Okay, so we pass this law, but what if we don't enforce it?"
Discrimination has no solution. Look at the two alternatives:
You left out option 3:
Don't trust human nature by itself, make some laws to make discrimination illegal, WITHOUT actually enforcing another type of discrimination.
Look at the college application process. It should be illegal to ask about your gender or race on an application.
Fixing discrimination with discrimination is retarded, but making discrimination ilegal is not.
None, but it really doesn't matter if you have enough money.
In "the land of the free" you can drown anyone else in legal fees until they stop doing whatever it is you don't like.
This is because, for some stupid reason, we think poor people don't have a right to a lawyer in a "civil" case. This is why large corporations are able to make private citizens their bitch. Even if you're right, if you run out of money for lawyers before they do, you're fucked.
As someone that writes software for the iPod, I can ensure you that it would be impossible for Apple to lock someone out of the hard drive. It is a standard Fat32 mount on all systems.
As a hardware engineer I can tell you that really doesn't mean anything. The Great Firewall of China is TCP/IP on both sides, but it doesn't prevent the firewalls existence.
Treat it as you would most devices that store data and it will work fine.
For now. There's nothing preventing Apple's next version of itunes from re-flashing the firmware in your ipod to block access to whatever portions of the drive they want, all while stille looking like a standard FAT32 file system.
That's the real point here. In a properly run class you might be able to get away with cheating ONCE.
It really comes down to teachers knowing their students, and discussing their work.
All of which brings me to the point of my rant - this kind of stuff only happens at institutions that employ crap teachers.
Yep. I once had a freshman writing seminar where every single thing I turned in for the entire semester got a B-. To this day, I'm still not sure if the guy actually read anything I turned in or not. I certainly refuse to believe that the quality of my work didn't vary throught the course of an entire semester. I think he just looked at me on the first day and said "B-".
But there was really nothing I could do about it. A paper with 6+ hours of work into it would get the same grade as a paper I started writing three hours before it was due.
While some people think it's "rape", there are many of us who write code, that picked a BSD license because we want anybody to be able to use our code without restrictions other than claiming it's their own.
Anybody can USE you code under the GPL as well.
What the GPL limits is how you can redistribute that code. The GPL prevents some asshole corporation from taking your highly successful open source tool, making it closed, breaking interoperability, and screwing you with your own code.
I''m not trying to say there is no use for the BSD liscense, but you're using some pretty misleading language here. Personally, I would be "fucking pissed" if I was ever forced to pay money to a company that did the above.
It's just as stupid to believe that Bush deliberately targeted him for being a liberal democrat. What on earth would that accomplish that would be worth the risk of doing something so obvious and ready to backfire?
That's not true. I'm not trying to claim that this is necessarily what has happened, BUT AT LEAST IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE for Bush to get Kennedy on the list.
Even though it would have been a stupid thing for Bush to do, it's at least a possibility, unlike Kennedy getting himself on the list. It also wouldn't be the first time this admistration did something stupid. They're not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer. "Mission accomplished" anyone?
I think that it's unlikely, but should be investigted.
Sounds like Ted was staging a publicity stunt to me.
WHAT THE FUCK!!?
Seriously, where the hell do people get ideas like this. Obviouslyhe set himself up as a publicity stunt......oh wait.....HE HAS NO CONTROL OVER THIS LIST. Yep, you're just another one of those fools who for some reason don't want to believe that the current administraion could EVER mess up even when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Maybe you've had your head in the ground since 9/11 but this country has routinely been harassing and banning people from air travel based on the flimsiest correlation (it's not even real "evidence") with some list of characteristics that MIGHT make them a terrorist.
It's stupid, and un-american and it's only matter of time untill they harassed someone important.
Do you know how bad people treat disposable cameras?
It's 1-2 uses, then trash.
Can you back that up? I'm guessing no.
Most people have no problem treating it like crap... no big deal, your not fined. Just don't go so far that your pics get destroyed.
You but you kinda missed the point there. Most people don't want their pics destroyed. Most people also don't know that destroying the LCD does not destroy their pictures.
These people have a $20 investment, plus the value of the pictures themselves that they would like some return on.
I sure "disposable" cameras DO get treated fairly harshly, but 1-2 uses is ridiculously low.
Actually the real data I can find has showed that.0001% of iPod owners actually had a faulty battery if you find the numbers in the class action lawsuit to be true.... while its not a true percentage since there might be a few who have never heard of the problem, I can not find a true percentage though and usually if its that big of a problem you would be garenteed to find statistics showing it.
1st off, what on earth did you just say there?
2nd where is this "real data" that gives you the.0001% ?
(If you're going to make up numbers, at least make them believeable..0001% says that there is a one in MILLION chance of an ipod battery failing. That's ridiculously low.)
if you comment was just to troll well your an idiot
I'm not trolling, if just baffled by your jumping to conclusion based on insufficient data. Anyways, you may not want to make that many grammar mistakes when insulting people. It sort of takes away from the impact.
And as for the iPod battery... mine is STILL going strong, and I have a 1st gen. That battery problem was SO blown out of proportion it isnt even funny and those "brothers" ended up looking like fools in the end.
Yes, obviously ONE is representative sample.
Look if you have a REAL reason to believe that there was no problem with the original ipod batteries that's one thing, but all the comment you posted shows is a total lack of understanding of statistics.
"Since my Pinto hasn't blown up yet, obviously there are no problems with them. These exploding car problems are SO blown out of proportion."
Because at the rate (this) technology is advancing, you might as well consider all digital cameras disposable within a few years.
Actually I see the complete opposite.
Digital camera resolutions are finally getting high enough so that OTHER things are starting to matter, like like lenses.
See, once your digital camera can shoot better than you can see, you don't really care how many megapixels it has. I predict that within a few years, cameras will no longer be marketed based on megapixels but instead on lens quality and light sensitivity.
In a couple years, just about any decent camera is going to have all the megapixels you could want. You're going to care a lot less about 20 MP vs 30 MP than you will about a cheap, shitty plastic lens vs real quality optics.
You can already see the beginnings of this trend now with major companies like Sony and Panasonic buying lenses from Zeiss and Lecia to use on their miniDV cameras.
Slashdot Mirror
I bought my iHP-120 about a year ago. It came with new newest firmware availible at the time.
My only gripes were:
The first item has been fixed via a new firmware release that I installed last week.
That's it. I think it's a GREAT mp3 player.
It has all sorts of EQ, sounds effects, does playlists, looping, records to mp3 or wav from 3 different sources, etc etc.
To me, there's only one thing missing.
Of course I welcome the idea of an open firmware, because one could create all kind of cool toys with it, a portable audio generator (sinewave, whitenoise, digital zero), for example.
Anyways, I guess my point is that the firmware ISN'T crappy. I think iriver has produced a very nice device.
Raise taxes? I can't believe people put up with taxes as high as they are!!
What's funny about this attitude is that you're not considering what the taxes are being used for. What if a $50 increase in taxes can lead to a $100 decrease in your health insurance costs?
You're basically coming at this with a "taxes are bad attitude". (Which is a silly attitude to have.)
A much more reasonable stance would be to support only government expenditures that are "worth" more than they cost.
I make about the same as you.
I honestly have no problem with paying the amount of taxes that I currently pay, I just think I should be getting MORE FOR MY MONEY. The thing I disagree with is not that my money is being taken, but that it's being pissed away on no-bid contracts for Halliburton.
There are so many BETTER things we could be doing with that money right now. Health care, education, investing in our national infrastructure, paying off the debt, cleaning up our environment, etc. The list goes on and on are they're all things that could ACTUALLY provide more value than cost (unlike supply-side silliness).
Right, because we shouldn't be charging the people that use the roads to maintain them.
Hold it right there!
That argument only works if gasoline tax is the only possible way for the gov't to pay for roads. It's not. (Anyways, we ALL use the roads.....or have all your pizzas been delivered by helicopter?)
I just don't see how it's regressive to tax gas.
It's pretty basic economics. A gasoline tax is about as regressive as a tax can get (in practice). If my income doubled tomorrow, my gas usage would stay exactly the same. As a result, I would be paying a lower proportion of my income toward gasline tax. I have to wonder if you actually understand what a regressive tax is, if you believe that a gasoline tax is not regressive.
Now here comes the important part:
Regressive taxes are bad because the poor have to use up a larger proportion of their income to pay them than the rich do.
The second two I can understand. But why the fuck would anyone in their right mind ever tailgate? It's a) dangerous, b) annoying, and c) doesn't get you there any faster. So what's the point?
Not only that it actually makes it harder to pass the person you're tailgating.
If you follow at a safe distance, you can anticipate your passing opportunity and do most of your acceleration while you're in the right lane. This minimizes size of the gap yo need in the left lane in order to pass someone.
I always laugh when I see some idiot tailgater who can't pass because he's tailgating. They actaully end up getting there SLOWER because the end up glued to the back bumper of the first person they find who's going slower than them.
Why should they ?
BECAUSE THEY"RE STATING UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THEY ARE THE OWNERS OF THE WORKS IN QUESTION.
After all, the false positives won't hurt the them, just the poor bastard whose ISP gets such a letter and cuts the service.
Unless that poor bastard just happens to be a large company/ rich individual who doesn't take kindl;y to stupid legal threats. It seems like it would be pretty easy to sue for damages since they're forcing the takedown of a website.
It often has very little to do with *you*. It quickly becomes your problem if you have done business with someone else and *they* are stupid enough to leave stuff in plain view. It would be nice if we knew that everyone we did business with was intelligent enough not to do this, but realistically we probably can't
This is why the credit card system should be scrapped ASAP.
The technology exists to do MUCH better. Imageine not having to trust a pizza place with access to your credit card fot the next N years! Imagine not having to worry what they do with their records.
Sounds sensible doesn't it?
This sounds like one of those arguments between those who think that the "free" part of the GPL refers to cost ("free beer") and those who realize that it has nothing at all to do with cost and everything to do with freedom ("free speech"). This isn't at all going into a grey area or even into any of the remotely confusing parts of the GPL.
Simply put, the GPL does not prohibit charging for binaries.
But what it does prohibit is giving people source code that WON'T COMPLIE TO PRODUCE THE BINARY YOU JUST GAVE THEM.
The way I understand it issue is NOT that they are chargin money for the binaries, it's that the source code for the windows version is not being made availible.
They don't need any "okay" from ANY of the code contributors unless they change the license.. and they aren't in this case.
As I undestand it, they are violating the liscense by not releasing releasing the proper source code. The ONLY way they could do that is if EVERYONE involded reliscensed the code under a new liscense.
Nope, it's door number 3. He admits he doesn't own all the code, but merely promises to remove and rewrite himself any code he didn't write if the programer asks.
That's still door #2.
Think about it. Say I download some big new hollywood movie and start selling it for $20 a pop. Then I say, if anyone involved in this movie complains, I'll stop selling it.
I'm a violating their copyright?
Fuck yes it am. I'm distributing that movie without the rights to do so.
It's the same thing here.
Any code this guy got under the GPL license can ONLY be redistributed under the GPL.
He's violating copyright law plain and simple. He simply CANNOT redistribute other people's GPL'ed code under a different liscense without breaking copyright law. He may be trying to be "nice" about it, but he's clearly in violation of the GPL.
Anybody whose code he's using can sue him, and that offer is just going to show that he was KNOWINGLY violating their copyright, and just hoping nobody would find out and complain.
A billing error can be resolved directly with the company.
Maybe.
You're stating as fact what is really only just a possibility. MAYBE the company will work with you or MAYBE you'll have to take them to court.
I'm sure my friend isn't the only person who's had problems with a certain cellphone provider trying to bill her for "account maintance fees" after both her contract had expired and she had cancelled the service.
The fact is that most people will simply ignore the bills instead of taking some responsibility.
Of course you can only call them up and spend 20 minutes on hold so many times before you get sick of it.
Where's the responsibility there? Some times the only way to get these asshole's attention is to threaten then with the L-word, otherwise they just might sell your bullshit "debt" to a collection agency.
Parents are to blame, not heartless corporations (this time).
Actually, it's both.
I always thought bankruptcy was a great concept for just this reason. Yes, a person should have a certain obligation to fulfill their debts, but companies also shouldn't go around loaning people more money than they could ever pay back.
Sure in an idea world, people would never make mistakes, but that's not reality and I think it would be pretty freakin evil to make a person pay for the next sixty years for a mistake they made at 18.
Yeah, that'll work. Like noone can tell the race of a "Sanjay Kumar", a "Mohammed Sayyef", a "Hanako Mizugawa", or a "Natasha Perkhounkova".
Did you stop and really think about what you suggested before you posted it?
Sure they can, but I didn't suggest that removing the "race" field was the ultimate solution to all discrimination. You're missing the point.
Removing the race field wasn't suggest as a full solution to the problem, but as obvious evidence of the problem. A college should not be asking what race you are. That should automatically throw up red flags, and be dealt with. It's an amazingly blatant form of discrimination, yet noting gets done about it.
What I have illustrated to the grandparent poster is that his view belied an underlying sex bias.
No you haven't.
Maybe he said what he said out of sexism, and maybe he said it because he was legitimately concerned that discrimination was going on.
You didn't illustrate anything because you don't frickin know what's inside his head. There's a very reasonable explanation for what he said that is NOT sexism.
Your reply is exactly the kind of B.S. I expected. You can't even step back and admit that asking if this woman got the job because she is a woman could have a non-sexist motivation.
Let me repeat this one more time for the extra dense:
Asking if sexism is occurring does not automaticlly make you sexist.
Since that's the ONLY justification you're giving for calling some poor person sexist, you're really just smearing them without any reasonable support. That sucks, and it's a shame that you don't take calling someone sexist more seriously.
Your gender bias has already presented itself. An equally valid question would have been "has MIT selected this person because they are a MAN" (assuming they were a man).
That's total nonsense. What you saying is that asking any questions about possible sexism/racism makes YOU sexist/racist. That's simply retarded.
In order to actually DO anything sexism we must be able to have a sane, logical discouse on the matter. Asking the question "Did MIT appoint a women in order to appear more attractive to female students?" is legitimate and is NOT sexist. It's a shame that people like you are so willing to throw labels like "sexist" around so lightly. The grandparent's post wasn't sexist, it just wasn't what you wanted to hear.
That's a huge problem today. If a woman hears something come out of a man's mouth on the topic of gender discrimination that she doesn't like, she can cry "sexism" even where none exists, and somehow people still take her seriously. (As I write this your comment is +4 Insightful.)
But hey, I'm not going to call you sexist for believing that even though this president doesn't meet the same criteria as past presidents (Engineering background being that it is MIT you know), that gender couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. Myopic and unwilling to see things you don't want to maybe, but not necessarily sexist.
How do you enforce this? With EEOCs? Jail time? Bullet to the head?
The same we enforce all the other laws that relate to how a company operates. Duh.
If you ignore it, it's the functional equivalent of #1 in the grandparent.
Obviously you won't ignore it.
If you enforce it, it's the functional equivalent of #2 in the grandparent.
No more that using the police to catch murders is still "relying on human nature".
In other words, no solution at all.
Actually, it's a quite reasonable solution, you're just coming up with issues that are non-issues, and only by making ridiculous assumptions like:
"Okay, so we pass this law, but what if we don't enforce it?"
Discrimination has no solution. Look at the two alternatives:
You left out option 3:
Don't trust human nature by itself, make some laws to make discrimination illegal, WITHOUT actually enforcing another type of discrimination.
Look at the college application process. It should be illegal to ask about your gender or race on an application.
Fixing discrimination with discrimination is retarded, but making discrimination ilegal is not.
What laws exactly is this breaking?
None, but it really doesn't matter if you have enough money.
In "the land of the free" you can drown anyone else in legal fees until they stop doing whatever it is you don't like.
This is because, for some stupid reason, we think poor people don't have a right to a lawyer in a "civil" case. This is why large corporations are able to make private citizens their bitch. Even if you're right, if you run out of money for lawyers before they do, you're fucked.
As someone that writes software for the iPod, I can ensure you that it would be impossible for Apple to lock someone out of the hard drive. It is a standard Fat32 mount on all systems.
As a hardware engineer I can tell you that really doesn't mean anything. The Great Firewall of China is TCP/IP on both sides, but it doesn't prevent the firewalls existence.
Treat it as you would most devices that store data and it will work fine.
For now. There's nothing preventing Apple's next version of itunes from re-flashing the firmware in your ipod to block access to whatever portions of the drive they want, all while stille looking like a standard FAT32 file system.
at least know your students and their work
That's the real point here. In a properly run class you might be able to get away with cheating ONCE.
It really comes down to teachers knowing their students, and discussing their work.
All of which brings me to the point of my rant - this kind of stuff only happens at institutions that employ crap teachers.
Yep. I once had a freshman writing seminar where every single thing I turned in for the entire semester got a B-. To this day, I'm still not sure if the guy actually read anything I turned in or not. I certainly refuse to believe that the quality of my work didn't vary throught the course of an entire semester. I think he just looked at me on the first day and said "B-".
But there was really nothing I could do about it. A paper with 6+ hours of work into it would get the same grade as a paper I started writing three hours before it was due.
I 100% agree with you.
While some people think it's "rape", there are many of us who write code, that picked a BSD license because we want anybody to be able to use our code without restrictions other than claiming it's their own.
Anybody can USE you code under the GPL as well.
What the GPL limits is how you can redistribute that code. The GPL prevents some asshole corporation from taking your highly successful open source tool, making it closed, breaking interoperability, and screwing you with your own code.
I''m not trying to say there is no use for the BSD liscense, but you're using some pretty misleading language here. Personally, I would be "fucking pissed" if I was ever forced to pay money to a company that did the above.
It's just as stupid to believe that Bush deliberately targeted him for being a liberal democrat. What on earth would that accomplish that would be worth the risk of doing something so obvious and ready to backfire?
That's not true. I'm not trying to claim that this is necessarily what has happened, BUT AT LEAST IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE for Bush to get Kennedy on the list.
Even though it would have been a stupid thing for Bush to do, it's at least a possibility, unlike Kennedy getting himself on the list. It also wouldn't be the first time this admistration did something stupid. They're not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer. "Mission accomplished" anyone?
I think that it's unlikely, but should be investigted.
Sounds like Ted was staging a publicity stunt to me.
WHAT THE FUCK!!?
Seriously, where the hell do people get ideas like this. Obviouslyhe set himself up as a publicity stunt......oh wait.....HE HAS NO CONTROL OVER THIS LIST. Yep, you're just another one of those fools who for some reason don't want to believe that the current administraion could EVER mess up even when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Maybe you've had your head in the ground since 9/11 but this country has routinely been harassing and banning people from air travel based on the flimsiest correlation (it's not even real "evidence") with some list of characteristics that MIGHT make them a terrorist.
It's stupid, and un-american and it's only matter of time untill they harassed someone important.
Do you know how bad people treat disposable cameras?
It's 1-2 uses, then trash.
Can you back that up? I'm guessing no.
Most people have no problem treating it like crap... no big deal, your not fined. Just don't go so far that your pics get destroyed.
You but you kinda missed the point there. Most people don't want their pics destroyed. Most people also don't know that destroying the LCD does not destroy their pictures.
These people have a $20 investment, plus the value of the pictures themselves that they would like some return on.
I sure "disposable" cameras DO get treated fairly harshly, but 1-2 uses is ridiculously low.
Actually the real data I can find has showed that .0001% of iPod owners actually had a faulty battery if you find the numbers in the class action lawsuit to be true.... while its not a true percentage since there might be a few who have never heard of the problem, I can not find a true percentage though and usually if its that big of a problem you would be garenteed to find statistics showing it.
.0001% ? .0001% says that there is a one in MILLION chance of an ipod battery failing. That's ridiculously low.)
1st off, what on earth did you just say there?
2nd where is this "real data" that gives you the
(If you're going to make up numbers, at least make them believeable.
if you comment was just to troll well your an idiot
I'm not trolling, if just baffled by your jumping to conclusion based on insufficient data. Anyways, you may not want to make that many grammar mistakes when insulting people. It sort of takes away from the impact.
And as for the iPod battery... mine is STILL going strong, and I have a 1st gen. That battery problem was SO blown out of proportion it isnt even funny and those "brothers" ended up looking like fools in the end.
Yes, obviously ONE is representative sample.
Look if you have a REAL reason to believe that there was no problem with the original ipod batteries that's one thing, but all the comment you posted shows is a total lack of understanding of statistics.
"Since my Pinto hasn't blown up yet, obviously there are no problems with them. These exploding car problems are SO blown out of proportion."
Because at the rate (this) technology is advancing, you might as well consider all digital cameras disposable within a few years.
Actually I see the complete opposite.
Digital camera resolutions are finally getting high enough so that OTHER things are starting to matter, like like lenses.
See, once your digital camera can shoot better than you can see, you don't really care how many megapixels it has.
I predict that within a few years, cameras will no longer be marketed based on megapixels but instead on lens quality and light sensitivity.
In a couple years, just about any decent camera is going to have all the megapixels you could want. You're going to care a lot less about 20 MP vs 30 MP than you will about a cheap, shitty plastic lens vs real quality optics.
You can already see the beginnings of this trend now with major companies like Sony and Panasonic buying lenses from Zeiss and Lecia to use on their miniDV cameras.