However, with, for example, the iPod and iTunes store, a lot of other companies have been able to produce alternatives that are cheaper, and do the job just as well, but better. What's the Apple answer? Lower the costs? Make their products (Fairplay DRM I'm looking at you) more attractive to consumers? Nope. Instead they try to stifle the competition by making their hardware only able to purchase tracks from their own online store
That's hilarious. You are saying that Apple took the entire online/portable music industry by storm starting from nothing by using vendor lock in? If the iTunes music store and the iPod weren't more attractive to customers, why would customers have bought them in the first place? There were and are plenty of other services and players. Customers chose the iPod/iTunes combination.
[...] taking legal action against any competitor that tries to provide tracks that can be made to work with Apple's hardware
Yeah, like the other day, when they sued those responsibe for producing a subversive technology called 'CDs' that allow people to make something called 'mp3s' that play on the iPod? Oh wait, that didn't happen.
There's a huge difference between not supporting other DRM and only supporting files with their DRM. Apple is simply not going out of its way to support everyone else's DRM format; it plays open formats just fine.
Here, the judge is reducing the sentence written in the law in spite of the fact that one of the convicted is the judges brother!
Um... where did you get that? It's pretty clear that the pronoun "her" in "Horne upheld the conviction of her brother" refers to Jessica DeGroot, and not Judge Thomas D. Horne
Lying to them and telling them they just can't use some sites any more--and even worse, spreading wildly bogus "technical" information to keep people confused about things like virus basics, plus thereby ensuring that they will look stupid to others down the road when they share their new "knowledge" about web sites--is indeed a sleazy tactic.
Treating people like they are stupid just because they are ignorant about a specific subject is never anything but a cruel ego-boosting tactic. Simplifying or providing analogies is one thing, lying and misinforming is another.
I've had a similar (although obviously less extreme) experience at a bank, opening a new account. For some stupid reason they actually made people register for your web account right there in from of them, rather than from home.
The clerk actually laughed at me when I started skimming the EULA, and then when she realized that I was actually going to skim the whole thing she started getting irritable and asking if she should print it out so I could look at it later instead (even though I had to agree right then in order to actually set up an account).
Well, it would be easier not to be skeptical if the slashdot submission processes didn't strip out all qualifiers. The article says they found something which they think *may* indicate a frozen sea, but may be something else entirely.
I know the knee-jerk reaction is to start posting links to their site, but in this case the best strategy for punishing such a stupid "rule" would be to go along with it. Never link to their site. Find any site that links to it, show them the relevant part of the letter, and encourage them to remove their links as well. Slowly stip the web of as many links to Ret Hat as possible.
I'm sure as they watched their pagerank fall, they would be comforted to know that they were finally getting what they asked for.
I just gave them a number that was slightly different than my actual number. Seemed like a good idea at the time.
In general, that's a terrible idea. You never want to risk confusing your credit record/account history/whatever with someone else's who actually has that number. Probably not a big risk at Blockbuster, but a very bad thing to get in the habit of doing.
A much better approach would be either to refuse to give it outright, or use one that is known to be invalid: either start with a number over 740, use 00 or 0000 for the middle or end. Even then though, you never know that someone else hasn't picked the same bad number.
There is only one reason by law a company can have your SSN#, and that is for paying taxes. If your relationship with the organization does not include paying taxes, then refuse to give them your SSN#. If they deny services, you can sue, it is illegal for them to force you to give them your SSN#.
Could you give some sources? I don't believe that your statement is generally true. It's true that there are only a few cases where you are required by law to give out your SSN (the N stands for Number, by the way--a SSN# is like an ATM Machine). However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's illegal for other companies to ask for your SSN, or refuse you service if you don't give it out. All the sources I can find (this one for example) say that in most cases the most you can do is take your business elsewhere. Some states have laws preventing refusal of service in specific cases (such as utilities), but in general you have no recourse but to complain and/or go elsewhere.
Before people take your advice and start threatening to sue everyone for violating a law, they should make sure the law actually exists where they are and applies to their situation--otherwise they'll just end up looking looking silly. Besides, it's always much more effective to be able to quote a specific law a company is breaking instead of just making vague claims of illegality.
Yes, it does in fact need to be dedicated 100%. From the IRS website:
In general, because of the exclusive-use rule, you cannot deduct business expenses for any part of your home that you use for both personal and business purposes.
It's quite clear. See http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc509.html for many more repetitions of the word "exclusive" in connection with home business deductions.
Unless you have a *dedicated* home office area in your house (the rules are very strict), writing off a portion of your mortgage/utilities as business expenses probably doesn't count as running a legal business.
While there must be some benefit for everyone else by creating programs to work against these nuisances, is it worth the risk to the rest of us or even to the potential careers of the graduates of the course?
No, it's not worth the risk. Any knowledge that could be used for evil must be supressed. Knowledge is bad.
Seriously, what kind of question is that? Are you suggesting that ignorance is the best approach to combating spam? Should we stop teaching say, chemistry, so there's no chance people will learn to make dangerous chemicals? I learned to make thermite in high school, after all. "It might be risky, we'd better not teach it" is a quick road to never teaching anything.
Reading the article, it "would appear" that the author thinks that "the secret" to being a "good consultant" is to "put things in quotes" all the time.
I wouldn't use a computer or OS that was designed for single button usage. I have 5 fingers and I can use them independantly. I refuse to use a device that doesn't let me use at least half of them.
What's your point? You can plug in any three-button scroll-wheel mouse and start using it right away in OS X. The right button does context menus, the scroll wheel scrolls, the scroll button does middle-click in those apps that watch for middle click (e.g., Camino/Firefox/Mozilla). Mice with more buttons have drivers that let you map extra buttons to whatever you want (Expose being a popular choice).
That is true even outside of Emacs. People often complain about needing a warning when quiting a program if multiple windows are open (which is why Firefox has a pref). Why? Because Cmd-W is right next Cmd-Q. Under Dvorak, I have never once accidently quit an application (q's neighbors, ';' and 'j', usually don't have any harmful effects).
I beg to differ, ever try using shortcuts on anything other than a QWERTY? A BIG problem with switching to Dvorak is most common keyboard shortcuts aren't convenient. Imagine stretching your fingers over the keyboard to do a Ctrl-C Ctrl-V
Yes, I have actually. When I learned Dvorak I thought I'd end up using the Dvorak + QWERTY-Command layout others have mentioned; that lasted about two weeks. I find that for two-handed use (using copy/paste while typing) copy and paste are easier under Dvorak (although I admit cut is slightly more awkward). For one-handed use, I simply use the right-Command key instead of the left--no stretching required.
Some degree of technical understanding is also essential, to identify when something is out of the ordinary, i.e. that request to verify your bank account goes to some ip address instead of yourback.com
On the contrary, it takes absolutely no technical understanding to tell the difference between a scam and a legitimate email request to verify your personal information with your bank. Because there aren't any of the latter. People just need to be taught that simple rule (and to know that forging the sender of an email is from is as easy as writing another name on the return address part of an envelope) to be safe from email scams; they don't need to know anything about IP addresses or how the internet works.
I'll agree that this is a casual conversation, but I would beg to differ that the legal meaning is not relevant. After all, we're discussing a lawsuit here.
The original post that was 'corrected' wasn't acutally discussing the suit though, it was a comment on the behavior and what it says about society.
Also, I don't really believe there is any consensus regarding the use of the word 'theft' for copyright infringement on Slashdot.
Sure, but only because there's a high concentration of people on Slashdot who are anal about using a string legal interpretation of the word everywhere, despite that fact that the vast majority in the real world accept the general usage. There's no consensus on much of reality in an institution for the severely disturbed either, but that doesn't make their view of reality valid in my day to day life.
Perhaps you'd want to check legal definitions, and not a dictionary.
Luckily, this is a casual conversation where we are using words to convey general concepts, not a court of law where very fine nuances are extremely important and many words have different meanings. Thus, a dictionary is a perfectly good place to go to see if a word is correctly being used to describe something, in non-legal terms. And that entry demonstrates that according to the defenition of stealing accepted by basically every english-speaking person (for non legal use) is very appropriate here.
So running out on, say, a haircut, is ok then? After all, you haven't taken any of the barber's property. Also, there's nothing wrong with not paying medical bills, right?
So if someone steals my car, I should be pleased at the compliment, since it shows how cool my car is?
Yes, yes, spare me the comments that it's not a perfect analogy and the IP infringement != theft rants. The point is that having people want to get your stuff illegally is not better than having people like your stuff enough to, you know, actually pay for it so you can make more. It's good to be in a business where people line up outside of stores for release parties or preorder your stuff long before it's going to be available, not to be in a business where people warez your stuff.
Here we see the classic anti-anti-MS defense, which holds that because some subset of Slashdot consists anti-MS zealots, anyone who defends any company for excercising legal rights must be a hypocrite. It's a rather transparent ad hominem attack, painting anyone who disagrees as not being the sort of person who's worth listening to, while completely sidestepping the issue of whether the defenses have any valid points. Apparently it was effective though, since the poster managed to insult all the defenders of Apple here several times without making any actual points, and got modded insightful for it. A very effective troll!
But then, if Microsoft posted this someone would mod it down, so anyone who mods me up must therefore be a hypocrite.
by being global the annoyance of time zones is eliminated. you just have to remember that you go to work 350 in switerzerland and 600 in michigan and that hocky night in canada is on at 120, 145 in newfoundland.
So, instead of having to remember a time zone difference, I have to remember an identical offset for everything except the actual time. How is that any less annoying?
Slashdot Mirror
However, with, for example, the iPod and iTunes store, a lot of other companies have been able to produce alternatives that are cheaper, and do the job just as well, but better. What's the Apple answer? Lower the costs? Make their products (Fairplay DRM I'm looking at you) more attractive to consumers? Nope. Instead they try to stifle the competition by making their hardware only able to purchase tracks from their own online store
That's hilarious. You are saying that Apple took the entire online/portable music industry by storm starting from nothing by using vendor lock in? If the iTunes music store and the iPod weren't more attractive to customers, why would customers have bought them in the first place? There were and are plenty of other services and players. Customers chose the iPod/iTunes combination.
[...] taking legal action against any competitor that tries to provide tracks that can be made to work with Apple's hardware
Yeah, like the other day, when they sued those responsibe for producing a subversive technology called 'CDs' that allow people to make something called 'mp3s' that play on the iPod? Oh wait, that didn't happen.
There's a huge difference between not supporting other DRM and only supporting files with their DRM. Apple is simply not going out of its way to support everyone else's DRM format; it plays open formats just fine.
Here, the judge is reducing the sentence written in the law in spite of the fact that one of the convicted is the judges brother!
Um... where did you get that? It's pretty clear that the pronoun "her" in "Horne upheld the conviction of her brother" refers to Jessica DeGroot, and not Judge Thomas D. Horne
Lying to them and telling them they just can't use some sites any more--and even worse, spreading wildly bogus "technical" information to keep people confused about things like virus basics, plus thereby ensuring that they will look stupid to others down the road when they share their new "knowledge" about web sites--is indeed a sleazy tactic.
Treating people like they are stupid just because they are ignorant about a specific subject is never anything but a cruel ego-boosting tactic. Simplifying or providing analogies is one thing, lying and misinforming is another.
I've had a similar (although obviously less extreme) experience at a bank, opening a new account. For some stupid reason they actually made people register for your web account right there in from of them, rather than from home.
The clerk actually laughed at me when I started skimming the EULA, and then when she realized that I was actually going to skim the whole thing she started getting irritable and asking if she should print it out so I could look at it later instead (even though I had to agree right then in order to actually set up an account).
I almost got up and walked out.
Isn't the much more important mistake that they don't actually know that it's water?
Well, it would be easier not to be skeptical if the slashdot submission processes didn't strip out all qualifiers. The article says they found something which they think *may* indicate a frozen sea, but may be something else entirely.
I know the knee-jerk reaction is to start posting links to their site, but in this case the best strategy for punishing such a stupid "rule" would be to go along with it. Never link to their site. Find any site that links to it, show them the relevant part of the letter, and encourage them to remove their links as well. Slowly stip the web of as many links to Ret Hat as possible.
I'm sure as they watched their pagerank fall, they would be comforted to know that they were finally getting what they asked for.
I just gave them a number that was slightly different than my actual number. Seemed like a good idea at the time.
In general, that's a terrible idea. You never want to risk confusing your credit record/account history/whatever with someone else's who actually has that number. Probably not a big risk at Blockbuster, but a very bad thing to get in the habit of doing.
A much better approach would be either to refuse to give it outright, or use one that is known to be invalid: either start with a number over 740, use 00 or 0000 for the middle or end. Even then though, you never know that someone else hasn't picked the same bad number.
There is only one reason by law a company can have your SSN#, and that is for paying taxes. If your relationship with the organization does not include paying taxes, then refuse to give them your SSN#. If they deny services, you can sue, it is illegal for them to force you to give them your SSN#.
Could you give some sources? I don't believe that your statement is generally true. It's true that there are only a few cases where you are required by law to give out your SSN (the N stands for Number, by the way--a SSN# is like an ATM Machine). However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's illegal for other companies to ask for your SSN, or refuse you service if you don't give it out. All the sources I can find (this one for example) say that in most cases the most you can do is take your business elsewhere. Some states have laws preventing refusal of service in specific cases (such as utilities), but in general you have no recourse but to complain and/or go elsewhere.
Before people take your advice and start threatening to sue everyone for violating a law, they should make sure the law actually exists where they are and applies to their situation--otherwise they'll just end up looking looking silly. Besides, it's always much more effective to be able to quote a specific law a company is breaking instead of just making vague claims of illegality.
Yes, it does in fact need to be dedicated 100%. From the IRS website:
In general, because of the exclusive-use rule, you cannot deduct business expenses for any part of your home that you use for both personal and business purposes.
It's quite clear. See http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc509.html for many more repetitions of the word "exclusive" in connection with home business deductions.
Unless you have a *dedicated* home office area in your house (the rules are very strict), writing off a portion of your mortgage/utilities as business expenses probably doesn't count as running a legal business.
While there must be some benefit for everyone else by creating programs to work against these nuisances, is it worth the risk to the rest of us or even to the potential careers of the graduates of the course?
No, it's not worth the risk. Any knowledge that could be used for evil must be supressed. Knowledge is bad.
Seriously, what kind of question is that? Are you suggesting that ignorance is the best approach to combating spam? Should we stop teaching say, chemistry, so there's no chance people will learn to make dangerous chemicals? I learned to make thermite in high school, after all. "It might be risky, we'd better not teach it" is a quick road to never teaching anything.
Reading the article, it "would appear" that the author thinks that "the secret" to being a "good consultant" is to "put things in quotes" all the time.
I wouldn't use a computer or OS that was designed for single button usage. I have 5 fingers and I can use them independantly. I refuse to use a device that doesn't let me use at least half of them.
What's your point? You can plug in any three-button scroll-wheel mouse and start using it right away in OS X. The right button does context menus, the scroll wheel scrolls, the scroll button does middle-click in those apps that watch for middle click (e.g., Camino/Firefox/Mozilla). Mice with more buttons have drivers that let you map extra buttons to whatever you want (Expose being a popular choice).
So what OS are you referring to, exactly?
That is true even outside of Emacs. People often complain about needing a warning when quiting a program if multiple windows are open (which is why Firefox has a pref). Why? Because Cmd-W is right next Cmd-Q. Under Dvorak, I have never once accidently quit an application (q's neighbors, ';' and 'j', usually don't have any harmful effects).
I beg to differ, ever try using shortcuts on anything other than a QWERTY? A BIG problem with switching to Dvorak is most common keyboard shortcuts aren't convenient. Imagine stretching your fingers over the keyboard to do a Ctrl-C Ctrl-V
Yes, I have actually. When I learned Dvorak I thought I'd end up using the Dvorak + QWERTY-Command layout others have mentioned; that lasted about two weeks. I find that for two-handed use (using copy/paste while typing) copy and paste are easier under Dvorak (although I admit cut is slightly more awkward). For one-handed use, I simply use the right-Command key instead of the left--no stretching required.
Some degree of technical understanding is also essential, to identify when something is out of the ordinary, i.e. that request to verify your bank account goes to some ip address instead of yourback.com
On the contrary, it takes absolutely no technical understanding to tell the difference between a scam and a legitimate email request to verify your personal information with your bank. Because there aren't any of the latter. People just need to be taught that simple rule (and to know that forging the sender of an email is from is as easy as writing another name on the return address part of an envelope) to be safe from email scams; they don't need to know anything about IP addresses or how the internet works.
I'll agree that this is a casual conversation, but I would beg to differ that the legal meaning is not relevant. After all, we're discussing a lawsuit here.
The original post that was 'corrected' wasn't acutally discussing the suit though, it was a comment on the behavior and what it says about society.
Also, I don't really believe there is any consensus regarding the use of the word 'theft' for copyright infringement on Slashdot.
Sure, but only because there's a high concentration of people on Slashdot who are anal about using a string legal interpretation of the word everywhere, despite that fact that the vast majority in the real world accept the general usage. There's no consensus on much of reality in an institution for the severely disturbed either, but that doesn't make their view of reality valid in my day to day life.
Perhaps you'd want to check legal definitions, and not a dictionary.
Luckily, this is a casual conversation where we are using words to convey general concepts, not a court of law where very fine nuances are extremely important and many words have different meanings. Thus, a dictionary is a perfectly good place to go to see if a word is correctly being used to describe something, in non-legal terms. And that entry demonstrates that according to the defenition of stealing accepted by basically every english-speaking person (for non legal use) is very appropriate here.
So running out on, say, a haircut, is ok then? After all, you haven't taken any of the barber's property. Also, there's nothing wrong with not paying medical bills, right?
"The company" = "Your company". The ADC rules say you can only distribute your keys to people within your company. Settle down.
So if someone steals my car, I should be pleased at the compliment, since it shows how cool my car is?
Yes, yes, spare me the comments that it's not a perfect analogy and the IP infringement != theft rants. The point is that having people want to get your stuff illegally is not better than having people like your stuff enough to, you know, actually pay for it so you can make more. It's good to be in a business where people line up outside of stores for release parties or preorder your stuff long before it's going to be available, not to be in a business where people warez your stuff.
Here we see the classic anti-anti-MS defense, which holds that because some subset of Slashdot consists anti-MS zealots, anyone who defends any company for excercising legal rights must be a hypocrite. It's a rather transparent ad hominem attack, painting anyone who disagrees as not being the sort of person who's worth listening to, while completely sidestepping the issue of whether the defenses have any valid points. Apparently it was effective though, since the poster managed to insult all the defenders of Apple here several times without making any actual points, and got modded insightful for it. A very effective troll!
But then, if Microsoft posted this someone would mod it down, so anyone who mods me up must therefore be a hypocrite.
by being global the annoyance of time zones is eliminated. you just have to remember that you go to work 350 in switerzerland and 600 in michigan and that hocky night in canada is on at 120, 145 in newfoundland.
So, instead of having to remember a time zone difference, I have to remember an identical offset for everything except the actual time. How is that any less annoying?
Hello - the title of this /. article is misleading...
You must be new here.