I don't care that YOU don't approve of someone host Bomb-making instructions. Who died and left you boss?
I'm not so opposed, and I see no reason why your paranoia (or anyone else's paranoia) should be controlling in this matter.
Look - The people that want to kill other people - they will continue to try and do so. Taking down instructions for making a bomb, or any other information, won't stop them from trying. What is does accomplish is to allow the Government to control information "To keep us safe". But, we have no data to indicate we are any safer, more secure.
I don't trust that they will have my best interests at heart. The nature of bureaucracy tells me that if there is any conflict between my best interest and a faceless bureaucrat covering their ass, my freedoms and rights will get trampled.
To me, it is more acceptable that the information be left online. It doesn't harm anyone. Sticks and stones...
No doubt many customers are now thinking their next "iPhone" will be an Android or Nokia model instead.
This has been stated in different ways many times before. Remember "...less space than a nomad. Lame"?
I have doubt that many current customers will go to another phone. While it may not make sense to everyone, the behavior observed shows that people buy and continue to buy Apple products despite the objections of folks on the internet. I've seen speculation, but I have yet to see an article that states "Data shows that sales of the new phone have slowed because of the design flaw in the new iPhone!"
Like it or not, Apple is proving itself right in the market, despite the reported opinions to the contrary. Just because there are people who have a different opinion doesn't matter.
Right now, the fact they are willing and able to create and license their work.
Creation requires a different level of effort and discipline than reproduction does.
The biggest issue with the current copyright set up is that it artificially restricts creation and reproduction in an attempt to maintain control for parties that are middlemen at best. They don't make content. They aren't the intended audience.
actually - the post I was replying to DID indicate that creators don't have a say. "...His desires are moot compared to the overall effect on society."
The West doesn't want Iran to have nukes because what the west wants isn't important to Iran. We'd be much more comfortable with the idea if we had the illusion of control, or even a measure of influence. We don't
Since the US doesn't have the political will to wage war on Iran, I guess we're going to have to find a way to accept them getting Nukes.
I've been arguing for years that we can do with less security...
But where will all of those people find jobs? And how will we convince the Government to shrink?
While "We the people" should care about that stuff, we've gotten used to it. Homeland Security doesn't make us more secure, but it's not grating enough to everyday people to get us motivated to change it.
Wrong - since there is nothing prohibiting their photography they should've been left alone. There is quite a bit of US law that allows public photography. There is no need for "Written permission". We already have it.
But, because of stupid fears we have more bureaucracy, and an increase of the idea of "Any behavior that isn't specifically allowed is prohibited!". The problem here is that isn't how our law actually reads. Not in America. Not yet.
Which was the point of the exercise - to highlight the fact that in actual practice we have a situation where citizens engaged in legal behavior in a public place are having that legal behavior stopped by the threat of force. Employees of this private security firm are not legally empowered to take away the rights of citizens in a public place.
After reading the article, the utter stupidity of this situation is heartbreaking. The motive here isn't to protect the train station. Nor is it to protect the citizens. Every employee of this private security firm just wants to cover their ass - to not lose a paycheck. A classic example of bureaucracy in action.
"reported apple policy" in this case means 2nd-hand anecdotal information from a forum post.
The source was some store manager from a 3rd party reseller trying to defect blame from his company's dumb-assed ploy. 'Oh there is nothing I can do. It's, ummm... err...Apple! Yeah, that's the ticket. They are making us!'
Didn't AT&T do the same thing with one of the iPhone releases in the states? Minus the blaming Apple, of course.
They make use of existing infrastructure. Infrastructure that was paid for by tax money. When providers use infrastructure paid for by them exclusively, then your argument will carry more weight with me. As long as existing infrastructure is used that was paid for by government subsidy, I'm not gonna be too moved by talk of how expensive it is.
Her facebook account isn't tied to her capacity as a dispatcher. It's a private (private as in "none of the city's business what I post on FB" ) matter, and the city overstepped it's bounds. If she fights I bet she can win.
Sounds reasonable... Let THEM pay for the increased costs, not me and other non-self-destructive persons.
Sure it sounds reasonable. Except any premium increase for a smoker isn't going to result in a savings for you. You are still going to pay for another's destructive behavior. That cost is just hidden from you.
An industry finding a clever way to generate more revenue, and convincing people to feel smugly superior about themselves at the same time they are getting screwed over. Awesome.
If someone is willing to pay, it isn't over-charging.
And to your other point made previously - for me it's the OS, not the hardware. A hackintosh would be fine by me, except for one thing; I have to work at it to make a hackintosh run. Probably not a lot of work, but still work. If I'm gonna have to work at it, I'd rather run linux.
The large part of my reason to keep buying Macs is I haven't had to do much of anything, except turn them on. For the most part it just runs. I work on computers for a living, it's nice to have something that doesn't require much care and feeding. Nice enough that I don't begrudge the money spent.
So - from your point of view, it's dumb to spend the extra money for the similar hardware. Makes sense. From my point of view, I'm spending that money so I'm not hassled, and that's worth the extra cash to me. It would be dumb to spend less money but have more of my time taken up with computer management tasks.
When I factor in the discounts available to me, the price gap is not very large. I don't think I could get a hackintosh cheaper than my current iMac.
Yeah - as someone who has been through 4 mergers, it's the "tow-mah-tow" to acquisition's "tow-may-tow". Probably there are differences in accounting and filings to regulatory agencies, but within each company, what ever name was kept was the winner.
Slashdot Mirror
Look - The people that want to kill other people - they will continue to try and do so. Taking down instructions for making a bomb, or any other information, won't stop them from trying. What is does accomplish is to allow the Government to control information "To keep us safe". But, we have no data to indicate we are any safer, more secure. I don't trust that they will have my best interests at heart. The nature of bureaucracy tells me that if there is any conflict between my best interest and a faceless bureaucrat covering their ass, my freedoms and rights will get trampled.
To me, it is more acceptable that the information be left online. It doesn't harm anyone. Sticks and stones...
Well played, sir.
Smart how? If actual sales numbers decline, then maybe. But as long as the phone continue to be in demand, I just don't see a recall happening.
No doubt many customers are now thinking their next "iPhone" will be an Android or Nokia model instead.
This has been stated in different ways many times before. Remember "...less space than a nomad. Lame"?
I have doubt that many current customers will go to another phone. While it may not make sense to everyone, the behavior observed shows that people buy and continue to buy Apple products despite the objections of folks on the internet. I've seen speculation, but I have yet to see an article that states "Data shows that sales of the new phone have slowed because of the design flaw in the new iPhone!"
Like it or not, Apple is proving itself right in the market, despite the reported opinions to the contrary. Just because there are people who have a different opinion doesn't matter.
Right now, the fact they are willing and able to create and license their work. Creation requires a different level of effort and discipline than reproduction does. The biggest issue with the current copyright set up is that it artificially restricts creation and reproduction in an attempt to maintain control for parties that are middlemen at best. They don't make content. They aren't the intended audience.
actually - the post I was replying to DID indicate that creators don't have a say. "...His desires are moot compared to the overall effect on society."
I...I think that a lot of loose cannons in government and in the military enabled Israel to develop their own nukes.
You say "poe-tay-toe"
The West doesn't want Iran to have nukes because what the west wants isn't important to Iran. We'd be much more comfortable with the idea if we had the illusion of control, or even a measure of influence. We don't
Since the US doesn't have the political will to wage war on Iran, I guess we're going to have to find a way to accept them getting Nukes.
I've been arguing for years that we can do with less security...
But where will all of those people find jobs? And how will we convince the Government to shrink?
While "We the people" should care about that stuff, we've gotten used to it. Homeland Security doesn't make us more secure, but it's not grating enough to everyday people to get us motivated to change it.
Wrong - since there is nothing prohibiting their photography they should've been left alone. There is quite a bit of US law that allows public photography. There is no need for "Written permission". We already have it.
But, because of stupid fears we have more bureaucracy, and an increase of the idea of "Any behavior that isn't specifically allowed is prohibited!". The problem here is that isn't how our law actually reads. Not in America. Not yet.
Which was the point of the exercise - to highlight the fact that in actual practice we have a situation where citizens engaged in legal behavior in a public place are having that legal behavior stopped by the threat of force. Employees of this private security firm are not legally empowered to take away the rights of citizens in a public place.
After reading the article, the utter stupidity of this situation is heartbreaking. The motive here isn't to protect the train station. Nor is it to protect the citizens. Every employee of this private security firm just wants to cover their ass - to not lose a paycheck. A classic example of bureaucracy in action.
Creators are a part of said society.
.... You know what pisses me off the most? Not being able to use the songs I "own" to make ring tones (easily).
Garageband is your friend
You can monitor and censor. Ask China. There will always be folks who can get around, but that will be small minority
... He seems to want Google to remove all links to his news sites, but refuses to understand that robots.txt is the way to do it.
Nah - he just wants money from Google. All of the other rhetoric is just hot air.
The source was some store manager from a 3rd party reseller trying to defect blame from his company's dumb-assed ploy. 'Oh there is nothing I can do. It's, ummm... err...Apple! Yeah, that's the ticket. They are making us!'
Didn't AT&T do the same thing with one of the iPhone releases in the states? Minus the blaming Apple, of course.
They make use of existing infrastructure. Infrastructure that was paid for by tax money. When providers use infrastructure paid for by them exclusively, then your argument will carry more weight with me. As long as existing infrastructure is used that was paid for by government subsidy, I'm not gonna be too moved by talk of how expensive it is.
Her facebook account isn't tied to her capacity as a dispatcher. It's a private (private as in "none of the city's business what I post on FB" ) matter, and the city overstepped it's bounds. If she fights I bet she can win.
Sounds reasonable... Let THEM pay for the increased costs, not me and other non-self-destructive persons.
Sure it sounds reasonable. Except any premium increase for a smoker isn't going to result in a savings for you. You are still going to pay for another's destructive behavior. That cost is just hidden from you.
An industry finding a clever way to generate more revenue, and convincing people to feel smugly superior about themselves at the same time they are getting screwed over. Awesome.
And to your other point made previously - for me it's the OS, not the hardware. A hackintosh would be fine by me, except for one thing; I have to work at it to make a hackintosh run. Probably not a lot of work, but still work. If I'm gonna have to work at it, I'd rather run linux.
The large part of my reason to keep buying Macs is I haven't had to do much of anything, except turn them on. For the most part it just runs. I work on computers for a living, it's nice to have something that doesn't require much care and feeding. Nice enough that I don't begrudge the money spent.
So - from your point of view, it's dumb to spend the extra money for the similar hardware. Makes sense. From my point of view, I'm spending that money so I'm not hassled, and that's worth the extra cash to me. It would be dumb to spend less money but have more of my time taken up with computer management tasks.
When I factor in the discounts available to me, the price gap is not very large. I don't think I could get a hackintosh cheaper than my current iMac.
That's funny. And it is a CAR analogy, to boot.
... Do I have MY priorities straight?
If you are posting THAT on /, probably not.
Statutes of limitations disagrees.
Yeah - as someone who has been through 4 mergers, it's the "tow-mah-tow" to acquisition's "tow-may-tow". Probably there are differences in accounting and filings to regulatory agencies, but within each company, what ever name was kept was the winner.
Decaf, bro...
Dresden, Tokyo...