I think I've managed to wrestle the point you're trying to make from the clutches of this post. I think.
That said, either my reading comprehension needs more practice or you are one confusing storyteller! Some points I find confusing:
1. "the other one... is cheaper. you have to pay an extra for the bags..." - The "other one" is Wal Mart, right? I jump to this conclusion based on the first line of your post, but I don't know if I'm reading you correctly. Wal Marts charge for bags these days?
2. "now Godaddy is none of them, not even Walmart... - Umm... I think what you mean is GoDaddy is worse than your local store AND worse than Wal Mart but I'm already so confused as to which store in your example is which so I might just be way off here.
3. "bottle of cucumber... - Huh...? er...
Though I'm not sure I am following your analogy correctly, overall I think your point is that GoDaddy sucks, right?
Regardless, any store that sells me cucumbers in a bottle (rotten or not) and then charges me for a bag to put it in won't be getting my business! So yes, they can go FSCK themselves, and I'll tell them right to their faces! Once I figure out who they are.
Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately, I did try that and it still doesn't work for me.
I'm glad to hear that perhaps this is only an issue for me and that it works fine for you, but on my 10.4.3 running PowerBook I get a blank (complete with no source) page if I type it into Safari. If I open FireFox and type it in it loads fine. If I then go back to Safari and type it in again it loads fine in Safari as well - for a while, then it stops working again after an hour or so (like how it was working before lunch and now it's not). Maybe I'm jumping to "inflamitory" conclusions but the symptoms I'm encountering sound an awful lot like what the people in the Digg.com-referenced thread are experiencing. It could be a coincidence or I could be a trolling dolt without a clue. I'll let you read some of the thread, combine it with your own experiences and decide for yourself, but for me it is at least a little suspicious...
Oh, and by the way, inflammatory?? What did I say that was inflammatory? I only pointed it out because I thought it might be a problem that should be looked into because it is a site for a Good Cause and should be as widely disseminated as possible.
It seems to suffer all the symptoms (loads in FireFox or IE but not Safari or Opera, but if you open it in FF or IE and then try it in Safari or Opera it will load...?). Curious and potentially unfortunate
Hopefully Gabe and company will become aware of this as Safari users that don't know of this "bug" (or "change" or whatever it is) may be discouraged to find the site doesn't load.
(Grandparent forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth)
I think you are misunderstanding his (the grandparent's) point. He is neither advocating micro-management style parenting NOR claiming that "not safe for 0-3 year olds" types of labels aren't useful as a guideline. Rather, his point (nee, my interpretation of it) is that people and organizations with goals and thinking similar to this NIMF outfit are trying to legislate morality and basically tell you, "We know what's right for your children, and his children, and her children, and their children, and..." and their respective flocks have much of their responsibilities seemingly washed away ("I don't need to teach little Billy anything because everything is already aligned with my moral compass - I'll just let Pat Roberts teach him!") thus leading to lazy parenting.
The problem is easily spotted: what's right for your kids and what's right for mine are probably going to differ somewhere between mildly and completely. Trying to get the government+media to lay down the law and tell everybody what's right for every child in every instance is wrong and a giant step backwards in the evolution of our society. I won't even get into the area of free speech and censorship... I'm probably firmly OT by now anyway.
The grandparent is advocating that parents take a more active roll in shaping their children's views and morals such that if said children are (God Forbid!) exposed to something they "shouldn't" be exposed to they will have the tools and rational thinking skills to be able to not be unduly influenced. In short, think for yourselves and give your children the ability to do the same!
Apologies for any incoherency. I hope at least some of what I was intending to say came through my muddles mess of words.
Okay, I'll take a bite out of this one, since no one else has yet (at time of post):
I don't think Blizzard cares if you sell their *game* on eBay, each CD has a key so that it can only be used with one account. As far as I know, it's perfectly reasonable to sell an unopened or even opened and used copy of the game on eBay or anywhere else - because any one CD can only be associated (read: used to play) with one account.
The question is in regards to people (known in-game as "chinese farmers" - though certainly they are not all Chinese) who "farm" for gold and/or high-level items and then sell the gold or the items on eBay or through some other means. So these farmers are getting paid physical money for virtual items, something that is clearly disallowed in the EULA -- as it should be -- but which is rampant on all realms I've played on. Search google for "buy WoW gold" and there will be not a dearth of hits.
The Autobots and their evil counterparts did not come from an advanced robot planet as cars, they came as advanced robots, robots so advanced that they were able to adopt the form of cars when they wanted to. Y'know, so as to disguise themselves from 1-dimensional characters in yellow hard hats and whatnot.
Aww, sounds like someone hasn't been invited to the party...;)
Google just gave me a few invites, I'd be willing to give you one if you think it might help sweeten that sour taste in your mouth.
Funny thing is, I hardly even use my gmail account because I've had my mac.com address so long. What I've done, though, is to use gmail like an email archiving station. Just a simple, "If sender of message is in my address book, forward the message to my gmail address" rule. Requires no interaction at all, I don't even know it's happening but all my "good" email is auto-magically archived.
Blah blah, I ramble. Seriously though, I'll send you an invite if you'd like...
That would be pretty classic, coming from the same government that claims the right to hold even US citizens indefinitely without access to legal council, because there is a "war against terror" in progress.
I totally agree with your statements with just one caveat: when the professor I mention in my previous post speaks it is not (technically) "coming from... the government" although he once was in the military. But as I alluded when I mentioned this could all be spin, he could be some lap dog that the government has "contracted" to go around telling people they aren't prisoners of war. If he was, though, I would have expected NPR to be a little rougher on him.
I should have left that quote out, perhaps, because the main point of my post was the bit about this being an "EPW Capable Brigade" and therefore unlikely that they weren't trained in matters of the Geneva Convention.
I'm certainly not saying I agree with or believe the guy 100%, but having a completely one-sided conversation is like having a circle jerk -- and circle jerks are just plain wrong.
Granted, this could be spin, but Gary Solis, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University, recently was interviewed Cheryl Corley of NPR on All Things Considered. Mr. Solis is an "expert on War crimes and the law of war."
First of all, when asked if these photos were of acts that could be considered war crimes, the professor replied, "Probably not, and that's because those who we have seen in these photographs probably are not prisoners of war. Anyone who is captured after occupation [as opposed to the invasion phase] began would not be a prisoner of war. They would be criminals, they would be insurrectionists, insurgents... So, the law of war only applies when there is a war in progress."
More to the point at hand, Ms. Corley later brought up a soldier mentioned in the previous story (Sgt. Ivan Frederick) who claimed he was not "instructed in the rules of the Geneva Convention" and asked the professor if he was surprised that the soldier would say this. The professor replied, "It not only surprises me, I don't believe him. And that is because he is a member of the 800th Military Police Brigade which is specified as an EPW [Enemy Prisoner of War] capable brigade... Their special assignment is to deal with EPWs, and anyone who's assigned to that brigade is going to be specifically and specially trained in dealing with EPWs. For him to say he had no training - I find that difficult to believe."
He did most certainly say that the MPs had the right and obligation to disobey orders (if any) to do such things.
The interview can be heard (in Real format) by going to this page and clicking on the second story entitled "Laws of War -- and War Crimes"
Furthermore, last time I checked (i.e. just before I clicked submit - "Check those URLs!), my dad wasn't charging for his photos. Although if you were so inclined I'm sure he'd gladly make an exception and accept a monetary donation.
Can't speak for the Windows version of iTunes, but iTunes happily (and easily) lets me edit the ID3 tags of the tracks I have bought from the iTunes Music Store on OS X. The only exception I know of is the Audible.com content, but those tags are (arguably) less important.
I'm a Mac guy but I use Windows at work and I have just installed it and done some (minimal) testing. Conclusion: Steve Jobs was not bullshitting when he said this is the best Windows app ever created.
iTunes is awesome.
Then the first one says, 'Oops, you're right.'
And the second says, 'Oops, I'm wrong.'
Correction, it should read like this:
Then the first one says, 'Oops, you're wrong.'
And the first one (moi) says, 'Oops, you're right, I am wrong.'
So, to recap:
One dude said you need Disk Utility to erase CD-RWs.
Another dude (me) said he wasn't sure but he thought you could right-click to do that and that he (me) would check for sure at lunch time.
A third dude said that the second dude (in this case, me) was mistaken.
The second dude (again, me) came back to bravely yet shamefully post that he (me [is that getting old yet?]) was wrong and that the third dude -- and by extension the first dude -- was right:
You DO have to use Disk Utility to erase CD-RWs. Fire up Help Center and search for "erase cdrw" and select the second hit to see for yourself.
Now I'm not saying it is absolutely, 100%, without a doubt, unequivocally true but the page linked to above is dated December 06, 2002. That's a long build-up for what would be a mediocre (at best) joke.
...CDRWs needs the Disk Utility app. What a joke! It should all be able to be done from within the Finder.
Hmm, strange. I'm assuming you are implying that the Disk Utility is necessary to erase a CDRW. I don't re-write a lot of discs but I'm about 90% sure (can't verify right now, no burner here at work) that there is an "Erase Disc" contextual menu item if you Right/Control-click on a CDRW in the finder. I believe it shows up in the same place as the "Burn Disc" item would be if the disc has yet to be burned. Makes sense to me.
I'll check this out when I go home for work if I can find a CDRW. I'll even admit to stupidity if I'm wrong!
Slashdot Mirror
OHHH! Everything makes much more sense now! Especially this part:
:)
:)
well pickles
I get it now... I think I'm going to go hide in the corner in shame now.
Thanks for the clarification.
I think I've managed to wrestle the point you're trying to make from the clutches of this post. I think.
... is cheaper. you have to pay an extra for the bags..." - The "other one" is Wal Mart, right? I jump to this conclusion based on the first line of your post, but I don't know if I'm reading you correctly. Wal Marts charge for bags these days?
That said, either my reading comprehension needs more practice or you are one confusing storyteller! Some points I find confusing:
1. "the other one
2. "now Godaddy is none of them, not even Walmart... - Umm... I think what you mean is GoDaddy is worse than your local store AND worse than Wal Mart but I'm already so confused as to which store in your example is which so I might just be way off here.
3. "bottle of cucumber... - Huh...? er...
Though I'm not sure I am following your analogy correctly, overall I think your point is that GoDaddy sucks, right?
Regardless, any store that sells me cucumbers in a bottle (rotten or not) and then charges me for a bag to put it in won't be getting my business! So yes, they can go FSCK themselves, and I'll tell them right to their faces! Once I figure out who they are.
Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately, I did try that and it still doesn't work for me.
I'm glad to hear that perhaps this is only an issue for me and that it works fine for you, but on my 10.4.3 running PowerBook I get a blank (complete with no source) page if I type it into Safari. If I open FireFox and type it in it loads fine. If I then go back to Safari and type it in again it loads fine in Safari as well - for a while, then it stops working again after an hour or so (like how it was working before lunch and now it's not). Maybe I'm jumping to "inflamitory" conclusions but the symptoms I'm encountering sound an awful lot like what the people in the Digg.com-referenced thread are experiencing. It could be a coincidence or I could be a trolling dolt without a clue. I'll let you read some of the thread, combine it with your own experiences and decide for yourself, but for me it is at least a little suspicious...
Oh, and by the way, inflammatory?? What did I say that was inflammatory? I only pointed it out because I thought it might be a problem that should be looked into because it is a site for a Good Cause and should be as widely disseminated as possible.
I tried checking out the charity site and got a blank page in Safari.
Perhaps the charity is using a redirect from GoDaddy?
It seems to suffer all the symptoms (loads in FireFox or IE but not Safari or Opera, but if you open it in FF or IE and then try it in Safari or Opera it will load...?). Curious and potentially unfortunate
Hopefully Gabe and company will become aware of this as Safari users that don't know of this "bug" (or "change" or whatever it is) may be discouraged to find the site doesn't load.
(Grandparent forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth)
I think you are misunderstanding his (the grandparent's) point. He is neither advocating micro-management style parenting NOR claiming that "not safe for 0-3 year olds" types of labels aren't useful as a guideline. Rather, his point (nee, my interpretation of it) is that people and organizations with goals and thinking similar to this NIMF outfit are trying to legislate morality and basically tell you, "We know what's right for your children, and his children, and her children, and their children, and..." and their respective flocks have much of their responsibilities seemingly washed away ("I don't need to teach little Billy anything because everything is already aligned with my moral compass - I'll just let Pat Roberts teach him!") thus leading to lazy parenting.
The problem is easily spotted: what's right for your kids and what's right for mine are probably going to differ somewhere between mildly and completely. Trying to get the government+media to lay down the law and tell everybody what's right for every child in every instance is wrong and a giant step backwards in the evolution of our society. I won't even get into the area of free speech and censorship... I'm probably firmly OT by now anyway.
The grandparent is advocating that parents take a more active roll in shaping their children's views and morals such that if said children are (God Forbid!) exposed to something they "shouldn't" be exposed to they will have the tools and rational thinking skills to be able to not be unduly influenced. In short, think for yourselves and give your children the ability to do the same!
Apologies for any incoherency. I hope at least some of what I was intending to say came through my muddles mess of words.
Who knew there were so many Van Zandt fans in South America!
I mean... WOW! Those boys are on FI-YAAA!
Okay, I'll take a bite out of this one, since no one else has yet (at time of post):
I don't think Blizzard cares if you sell their *game* on eBay, each CD has a key so that it can only be used with one account. As far as I know, it's perfectly reasonable to sell an unopened or even opened and used copy of the game on eBay or anywhere else - because any one CD can only be associated (read: used to play) with one account.
The question is in regards to people (known in-game as "chinese farmers" - though certainly they are not all Chinese) who "farm" for gold and/or high-level items and then sell the gold or the items on eBay or through some other means. So these farmers are getting paid physical money for virtual items, something that is clearly disallowed in the EULA -- as it should be -- but which is rampant on all realms I've played on. Search google for "buy WoW gold" and there will be not a dearth of hits.
Hope that helps!
Throx of Greymane
pshaw! Clearly you are uninitiated...
The Autobots and their evil counterparts did not come from an advanced robot planet as cars, they came as advanced robots, robots so advanced that they were able to adopt the form of cars when they wanted to. Y'know, so as to disguise themselves from 1-dimensional characters in yellow hard hats and whatnot.
Duh!
Aww, sounds like someone hasn't been invited to the party... ;)
Google just gave me a few invites, I'd be willing to give you one if you think it might help sweeten that sour taste in your mouth.
Funny thing is, I hardly even use my gmail account because I've had my mac.com address so long. What I've done, though, is to use gmail like an email archiving station. Just a simple, "If sender of message is in my address book, forward the message to my gmail address" rule. Requires no interaction at all, I don't even know it's happening but all my "good" email is auto-magically archived.
Blah blah, I ramble. Seriously though, I'll send you an invite if you'd like...
I totally agree with your statements with just one caveat: when the professor I mention in my previous post speaks it is not (technically) "coming from
I should have left that quote out, perhaps, because the main point of my post was the bit about this being an "EPW Capable Brigade" and therefore unlikely that they weren't trained in matters of the Geneva Convention.
I'm certainly not saying I agree with or believe the guy 100%, but having a completely one-sided conversation is like having a circle jerk -- and circle jerks are just plain wrong.
Granted, this could be spin, but Gary Solis, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University, recently was interviewed Cheryl Corley of NPR on All Things Considered. Mr. Solis is an "expert on War crimes and the law of war."
First of all, when asked if these photos were of acts that could be considered war crimes, the professor replied, "Probably not, and that's because those who we have seen in these photographs probably are not prisoners of war. Anyone who is captured after occupation [as opposed to the invasion phase] began would not be a prisoner of war. They would be criminals, they would be insurrectionists, insurgents... So, the law of war only applies when there is a war in progress."
More to the point at hand, Ms. Corley later brought up a soldier mentioned in the previous story (Sgt. Ivan Frederick) who claimed he was not "instructed in the rules of the Geneva Convention" and asked the professor if he was surprised that the soldier would say this. The professor replied, "It not only surprises me, I don't believe him. And that is because he is a member of the 800th Military Police Brigade which is specified as an EPW [Enemy Prisoner of War] capable brigade... Their special assignment is to deal with EPWs, and anyone who's assigned to that brigade is going to be specifically and specially trained in dealing with EPWs. For him to say he had no training - I find that difficult to believe."
He did most certainly say that the MPs had the right and obligation to disobey orders (if any) to do such things.
The interview can be heard (in Real format) by going to this page and clicking on the second story entitled "Laws of War -- and War Crimes"
The apostrophe crack I liked, it was funny, but I must respectively take issue with your accusation.
Gratuitous? Perhaps I could see your point if my submission was littered with links to my own website -- which is completely unrelated to the submission -- then I might agree with you. As it is, though, I merely linked to my pops' site because it is, at least somewhat, related to the submission and gives a bit of background as to why he would have run across a link such as this.
Furthermore, last time I checked (i.e. just before I clicked submit - "Check those URLs!), my dad wasn't charging for his photos. Although if you were so inclined I'm sure he'd gladly make an exception and accept a monetary donation.
;)
Can't speak for the Windows version of iTunes, but iTunes happily (and easily) lets me edit the ID3 tags of the tracks I have bought from the iTunes Music Store on OS X. The only exception I know of is the Audible.com content, but those tags are (arguably) less important.
I'm a Mac guy but I use Windows at work and I have just installed it and done some (minimal) testing. Conclusion: Steve Jobs was not bullshitting when he said this is the best Windows app ever created. iTunes is awesome.
Yeah, and you can go use an Automatic Transaction/Teller Machine Machine to get the money to pay the tax.
I know I'll get modded down for this, but I think it's more like the opposite of:
"I know I'll get modded down for this, but...
That seems to work for most people...
color.
I believe the phrase for what you propose is Obstructing Justice.
One dude said you need Disk Utility to erase CD-RWs.
Another dude (me) said he wasn't sure but he thought you could right-click to do that and that he (me) would check for sure at lunch time.
A third dude said that the second dude (in this case, me) was mistaken.
The second dude (again, me) came back to bravely yet shamefully post that he (me [is that getting old yet?]) was wrong and that the third dude -- and by extension the first dude -- was right:
You DO have to use Disk Utility to erase CD-RWs. Fire up Help Center and search for "erase cdrw" and select the second hit to see for yourself.
Hope this clears things up.
Let me reiterate:
Are you sure it isn't true?
Now I'm not saying it is absolutely, 100%, without a doubt, unequivocally true but the page linked to above is dated December 06, 2002. That's a long build-up for what would be a mediocre (at best) joke.
Or is it?
Bah, indeed you are correct. I guess I'm having hold-over memories from OS 9.
I hereby admit to being 100% wrong.
D'oh!
I'll check this out when I go home for work if I can find a CDRW. I'll even admit to stupidity if I'm wrong!
This (and the OpenGL thing and... well, a LOT of things MS does) reminds me of this OLD joke I heard quite a few years ago:
Q. How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. None. They simply declare darkness to be the new standard.
GONNNNG!!