Last night when corresponding with a German friend online I found out she only makes 600 euros a month in an office building.
Little did she know that's the type of wages one can get from working at McDonalds over here in the U.S.
My old job I made twice as much as her, and my current I'm making four times what she makes.
Way to completely ignore basic economic facts. Did you ask her how much rent is in her area? How much a Big Mac is both countries? Did you subtract your medical/dental insurance from your monthly wage, as taxes paid hers? Or your pension vs her state pension, also paid thru tax? Just how much does it cost to live in each country for a month?
Only then will you know if you are "better paid". There is more to currency exchange than just the simple exchange rate. Hell, I make more an hour than some people do in a month, but if I were to move to those countries with a year of my pay, I'd never need to work again.
Are you upset because you can't download copies of your favorite songs for free? Or use copyrighted material any way you wish without permission from the author?
It's quite simple really, the US said "create these laws, or we will enforce trade tarrifs on your countries most popular exports". The content of the law is irrelevant, but yes, having to break the law to listen to media I own is a tad annoying, but I break several laws every day and I don't lose sleep over them.
As with most things the U.S. pays for it, and the rest of the world wants to take it for free.
What dream world are you living in? Hint: the net cash flow goes into the US, not out. This inbalance is the primary goal of US foreign policy. If you are thinking charity donations, well you don't even make the top 20 However, presenting the image of "America the Saviour" is key to your rulers military campaigns, which is why this propaganda is installed in you from an early age. You went into Iraq to help the Iraqis, not yourselves, right?;-)
China controls the top level domains and you want to register something like ChinaKillsPeople.com, and you just don't get denied acess
Is "photosofprisonerabuse.com" taken, or perhaps "deadsoldiersreturnhome.com"? People in glass houses should not throw stones. Also, could you drop the "we are better than China, so what's your problem?" attitude. There aren't many countries that aren't better than China WRT personal freedoms and rights, so using this argument actually makes you look bad overall. It's like saying "mom, my boyfriend isn't Charles Manson, he only kills babies at the weekend".
New houses are pretty much never made of anything but wood in the US and Canada. The other stuff is too expensive.
I figured it would likely be economic, though I don't understand why. We have many quarries churning out masonary building blocks, what I don't understand is why the US doesn't do the same. Perhaps the local resources just aren't available where they are needed. Here, bricks are dirt cheap; in fact I would not be surprised if they are cheaper than using wood overall.
We've been using predominately stone for several hundred years, and there are a lot of old building in extremely good condition. My flat is over one hundred years old and it could probably see another hundred without too much maintainence. However, standards have fallen and many 60s/70s builds are already falling apart.
What has the US done to hinder your online experience as a non-citizen?
Enforse your DMCA laws on us by use of trade blackmail?
But it's not the present I'm worried about, more the future. Your current leadership has shown utter disregard for the international community. They cannot be trusted with the internet; I'm talking about people that have mounted a disinformation campaign to get people to back a counter-productive war for the benefit of their benefactors. How long before those benefactors (sorry, "campaign contributers") seek to control the internet for their own profit? Your government puts the needs of the people behind the needs of corporations. That is not how I would like to see the internet run.
Every country should have to pay royalties to the US-government for letting them use their TCP-IP-technology.
Ok, then where do we send the bill for you using binary computing, packet switching, WWW and most of the other base technologies that make up the internet? These were invented by folks all around the world, what the US DoD did was fund a load of academics to couple all of the systems into a robust network.
Countries to whom "freedom" is just a word to be filtered. Countries where a constitution is just words on some expensive paper. Countries that care little for anything except maintaining their own power.
I think the above is pretty much why the rest of us are unconfortable with the current US administration being in control of the internet.
Yes, you could get hurt, probably just minor cuts and bruises, but it's not much different then cleaning your yard
Is your yard covered in a toxic waste sludge, along with sewage and rotting animal corpses? "Cuts and bruises" aren't all that minor when there are deadly organisms having spring break like in N.O. right now.
Pine is the basically the only wood used for construction any more because all of the hardwoods have been priced WAY WAY out of reason. For instance, a 2x4 8 ft pine board runs around $3.50 or so.
Why are you building homes out of wood in a huricane prone area? That just reeks of stupidity. Didn't you get "The Three Little Pigs" nursery rhyme as children? I've have never understood it, perhaps Dorothy might have been able to keep her feet on the ground in a house made from brick?;-)
I'm both an investor and a customer. I can't imagine being one and not the other.
A large majority of the public are the latter and not the former. They may have investments thru third party funds, but that is not relevant as they do not get shareholder benefits.
Secondly, Apple hasn't done anything but respond to customer issues--it's not as if they stop paying attention to problem hardware as soon as their share price recovers.
Sorry, but using cheap materials is not responding to the customer. It's responding to the stock holder.
is Apple failing its consumers, or is a small minority of consumers just a bunch of whiners?
Both, in different instances. Having worked in the electronic manufacturing industry, I am all to well aware of how recalls, part sourcing, testing etc work. Either Apple didn't test the materials for wear and tear, or they did and decided that the current status was acceptible. Either way is poor engineering.
I suspect that the consumers are being unreasonable. I mean, come on, they're bitching about scratches!
Apple products are sold strongly on looks and image. Think Different. So, bitching about heaving scratching after a month of usage is well in order if you ask me. Especially as the nano is advertised largely on it's looks. As I've said in other posts, I've got dozens of portable devices and none of them have had damage like this in their entire lifetime.
PS I don't have an iPod by the way, nor am I an investor. My view is as someone who has worked in these industries, not a bitching teenager.
Damage to the screen of any device is unacceptable given normal wear and tear. If you throw it in your pocket with your keys, then fair play, it's your own fault. However, it seems the nano can get damaged by having it alone in your pocket. That's just bad materials.
If you put something in you pocket it will scratch.
Bullshit. I've got a touchscreen PDA that's been living in my denim (tough fabric) jeans pockets for six months. Not a single scratch on it, not one, dropped it four or five times onto carpets, hardwood and concrete. Build your products out of materials that aren't the cheapest around, and they will last longer. Different plastics are tougher than others...
Hello, it's plastic, not glass, it's going to get scratched up, just like your car is going to get door dinged in the parking lot; that's life.
No, there are plenty of other portable products that don't have these problems. Of course, admiting that Apple made a mistake and choose cheap materials is heresy round these parts...
The thing is, the nano is thin like a cell phone. I've already snapped two non-clamshell model cell phones in half by sitting on them
So? I've been carrying a cellphone in my jeans pocket since 1994, perhaps five different phones. Only one has had the screen broken, and that was a table corner I bumped into. It saved my nuts from the impact, which was probably a good thing!
I've been carrying gadgets around with me forever. Never have I had anything even close to the crap build quality of these iPods. I've not got a lot of sympathy for the first-gen nano owners though; the first-gen of anything is always a bit crappy, susceptible to various problems etc. Presently, I have a touch-screen PDA, there is not one scratch on the screen nor the casing. I've never bothered with covers or anything like that, though my current PDA does have a clear "screen protector" cover (I saw the replacement cost up front, and decided to "just in case", for all the $10 for the film cover cost).
It seems Apple are making the iPod out of crap materials, that's the end of the story. Scratch resistant materials have been around for decades, and they are use this either for cost savings or [conspiracy]selling new units[/conspiracy]. If they wanted to make it tougher, they could. At some point, it was decided in a meeting to go with the crap stuff. It wasn't an accident; it was choice. Either that, or they don't do wear & tear testing, which would be poor engineering. Either way, they are at fault, not the users.
they're one of the countries that's having problems with people dieing at the Cyber-Cafes because they refuse to stop playing a game for three days.
That has to be one of the worst reasons I've ever heard not to do something. What next? Not giving out laptops to children in case they get into the hands of terrorists? lol.
Amazon's terms and conditions state 90 days, and this was more than 90 days.
Not relevant. The terms and conditions might suggest you owe them your first born, but it doesn't change the law!;-) "your statatory rights are not affected".
Even without the "ultra-reliable" claim, you are still under waranty for a "reasonable" period, which really is debatable on a per-item basis as somethings clearly should last longer than others. Under Scots law (ever so slightly different from English), the upper limit for a claim is six years after the fault. English law is six years from purchase IIRC.
Not that I'm pointing out anything you don't probably know, looks like you managed to get a result through looking into it. "Sale of goods act" and "trade descriptions" act are good quotes to use should you ever get any hastle from a vendor in future.:-)
after eight months it died. Fine, I thought, it is under warranty. So went to the web-site and after a bit of mucking about I managed to get an RMA. Or thought I did. I actually had filled in a form to request a form to request an RMA. Pointless bureaucracy gone mad. Still I got the form. Or rather excel spreadsheet. So now I need a) a working computer
Under UK law, your issue is with the company you bought it from, not the manufacturer. This is why you got a better result when you contacted Amazon in the end. Check out the Trading Standards website for more info, but basically when something dies, go back to the shop.
A)Slashdot is not a good source of news. B)No one actually bothers to check the story. C)People believe everything the read. D)It's really funny watching people believe everything they read.
You've just figured out how the news industry works!! At worst, all you ever have to do is issue a retraction, but the 90% of folk who saw the original miss it. That's why most citizens still believe that Iraq was involved in 9-11 and had WMD.
That took me a good minute to stop laughing there. You don't buy a portable player for quality. The sound in my mobile phone is as good as your iPod. In fact, as mine can play way more formats, I'd bet at least one of them was superiour to the iPod suppporting ones.
You can see that Africans, the "distant people" referred to here, are recognized as having the same "sacred rights" that the Constitution was later written to protect.
Then why were many of the authors of the constitution directly involved in the slave trade? You have no "sacred rights" as a slave.
As I recall, IIS has been trojaned so many times without any user interaction. Maybe since they installed IIS, they trojaned themselves ?
Yes, I made the 90% number up. It was to illustrate a point, not make a scientific claim. And you need to look up the definition of "trojan". IIS got wormed, different thing altogether. An ideal app can be impervious to a worm, which is an external attack. A trojan is when you get something hidden in something you choose to download. No OS ever made is secure against that, except perhaps some hypothetical trusted-computing platform, which no one wants.
My point with the 90% was that the user is largely responsible for vetting trojans. Download your software from the official source, check the checksums and you will likely never get a virus like the one in the article. Don't run open ports, you won't get wormed.
Why would you install Mozilla Firefox as root? I have "~/bin" and I put all my 3rd party apps in there. Even in a multiuser system, I would install it as a non-root user in/opt/mozilla or some such location and add users into the correct group.
Should linux make it big on the desktop, the installers have to be easy to use. Sure, you do it the correct way and it's all well and good. However, you still need to create your/opt/mozilla directory, which requires root access to both create and lock down so that regular users cannot mess around with it. Someone needs root access at some point in order to configure it correctly. You do it manually, and you are safe. Grandad wouldn't...
It would be trivial to clean this up, since any rights it would have would be that of the user under which Firefox is running.
And said installer would ask "please enter root password to proceed". As you say, it's a PEBKAC problem.
Excuse me, but you are wrong. A non root user cannot create a binary, set user to root, then set the setuid bit. That would be a massive security hole, as anyone could execute it. Somewhere in the chain their would have to be another app with setuid active in order to do this.
And installing the app is the problem. Ever heard of "preinstall" and "postinstall" scripts? That's where you deploy your malware.
You picked the wrong guy to call "windows fanboy"; I used Unix exclusively until well after Win 98 SE was out.
Slashdot Mirror
Way to completely ignore basic economic facts. Did you ask her how much rent is in her area? How much a Big Mac is both countries? Did you subtract your medical/dental insurance from your monthly wage, as taxes paid hers? Or your pension vs her state pension, also paid thru tax? Just how much does it cost to live in each country for a month?
Only then will you know if you are "better paid". There is more to currency exchange than just the simple exchange rate. Hell, I make more an hour than some people do in a month, but if I were to move to those countries with a year of my pay, I'd never need to work again.
In short: we don't trust you anymore.
It's quite simple really, the US said "create these laws, or we will enforce trade tarrifs on your countries most popular exports". The content of the law is irrelevant, but yes, having to break the law to listen to media I own is a tad annoying, but I break several laws every day and I don't lose sleep over them.
What dream world are you living in? Hint: the net cash flow goes into the US, not out. This inbalance is the primary goal of US foreign policy. If you are thinking charity donations, well you don't even make the top 20 However, presenting the image of "America the Saviour" is key to your rulers military campaigns, which is why this propaganda is installed in you from an early age. You went into Iraq to help the Iraqis, not yourselves, right? ;-)
China controls the top level domains and you want to register something like ChinaKillsPeople.com, and you just don't get denied acess
Is "photosofprisonerabuse.com" taken, or perhaps "deadsoldiersreturnhome.com"? People in glass houses should not throw stones. Also, could you drop the "we are better than China, so what's your problem?" attitude. There aren't many countries that aren't better than China WRT personal freedoms and rights, so using this argument actually makes you look bad overall. It's like saying "mom, my boyfriend isn't Charles Manson, he only kills babies at the weekend".
I figured it would likely be economic, though I don't understand why. We have many quarries churning out masonary building blocks, what I don't understand is why the US doesn't do the same. Perhaps the local resources just aren't available where they are needed. Here, bricks are dirt cheap; in fact I would not be surprised if they are cheaper than using wood overall.
We've been using predominately stone for several hundred years, and there are a lot of old building in extremely good condition. My flat is over one hundred years old and it could probably see another hundred without too much maintainence. However, standards have fallen and many 60s/70s builds are already falling apart.
Enforse your DMCA laws on us by use of trade blackmail?
But it's not the present I'm worried about, more the future. Your current leadership has shown utter disregard for the international community. They cannot be trusted with the internet; I'm talking about people that have mounted a disinformation campaign to get people to back a counter-productive war for the benefit of their benefactors. How long before those benefactors (sorry, "campaign contributers") seek to control the internet for their own profit? Your government puts the needs of the people behind the needs of corporations. That is not how I would like to see the internet run.
Ok, then where do we send the bill for you using binary computing, packet switching, WWW and most of the other base technologies that make up the internet? These were invented by folks all around the world, what the US DoD did was fund a load of academics to couple all of the systems into a robust network.
I think the above is pretty much why the rest of us are unconfortable with the current US administration being in control of the internet.
Is your yard covered in a toxic waste sludge, along with sewage and rotting animal corpses? "Cuts and bruises" aren't all that minor when there are deadly organisms having spring break like in N.O. right now.
Why are you building homes out of wood in a huricane prone area? That just reeks of stupidity. Didn't you get "The Three Little Pigs" nursery rhyme as children? I've have never understood it, perhaps Dorothy might have been able to keep her feet on the ground in a house made from brick? ;-)
A large majority of the public are the latter and not the former. They may have investments thru third party funds, but that is not relevant as they do not get shareholder benefits.
Secondly, Apple hasn't done anything but respond to customer issues--it's not as if they stop paying attention to problem hardware as soon as their share price recovers.
Sorry, but using cheap materials is not responding to the customer. It's responding to the stock holder.
is Apple failing its consumers, or is a small minority of consumers just a bunch of whiners?
Both, in different instances. Having worked in the electronic manufacturing industry, I am all to well aware of how recalls, part sourcing, testing etc work. Either Apple didn't test the materials for wear and tear, or they did and decided that the current status was acceptible. Either way is poor engineering.
I suspect that the consumers are being unreasonable. I mean, come on, they're bitching about scratches!
Apple products are sold strongly on looks and image. Think Different. So, bitching about heaving scratching after a month of usage is well in order if you ask me. Especially as the nano is advertised largely on it's looks. As I've said in other posts, I've got dozens of portable devices and none of them have had damage like this in their entire lifetime.
PS I don't have an iPod by the way, nor am I an investor. My view is as someone who has worked in these industries, not a bitching teenager.
Damage to the screen of any device is unacceptable given normal wear and tear. If you throw it in your pocket with your keys, then fair play, it's your own fault. However, it seems the nano can get damaged by having it alone in your pocket. That's just bad materials.
Bullshit. I've got a touchscreen PDA that's been living in my denim (tough fabric) jeans pockets for six months. Not a single scratch on it, not one, dropped it four or five times onto carpets, hardwood and concrete. Build your products out of materials that aren't the cheapest around, and they will last longer. Different plastics are tougher than others...
The thing is, people like you seem to be more important to these companies than say, I don't know, for example THEIR CUSTOMERS
No, there are plenty of other portable products that don't have these problems. Of course, admiting that Apple made a mistake and choose cheap materials is heresy round these parts...
So? I've been carrying a cellphone in my jeans pocket since 1994, perhaps five different phones. Only one has had the screen broken, and that was a table corner I bumped into. It saved my nuts from the impact, which was probably a good thing!
I've been carrying gadgets around with me forever. Never have I had anything even close to the crap build quality of these iPods. I've not got a lot of sympathy for the first-gen nano owners though; the first-gen of anything is always a bit crappy, susceptible to various problems etc. Presently, I have a touch-screen PDA, there is not one scratch on the screen nor the casing. I've never bothered with covers or anything like that, though my current PDA does have a clear "screen protector" cover (I saw the replacement cost up front, and decided to "just in case", for all the $10 for the film cover cost).
It seems Apple are making the iPod out of crap materials, that's the end of the story. Scratch resistant materials have been around for decades, and they are use this either for cost savings or [conspiracy]selling new units[/conspiracy]. If they wanted to make it tougher, they could. At some point, it was decided in a meeting to go with the crap stuff. It wasn't an accident; it was choice. Either that, or they don't do wear & tear testing, which would be poor engineering. Either way, they are at fault, not the users.
That has to be one of the worst reasons I've ever heard not to do something. What next? Not giving out laptops to children in case they get into the hands of terrorists? lol.
Not relevant. The terms and conditions might suggest you owe them your first born, but it doesn't change the law! ;-) "your statatory rights are not affected".
Even without the "ultra-reliable" claim, you are still under waranty for a "reasonable" period, which really is debatable on a per-item basis as somethings clearly should last longer than others. Under Scots law (ever so slightly different from English), the upper limit for a claim is six years after the fault. English law is six years from purchase IIRC.
Not that I'm pointing out anything you don't probably know, looks like you managed to get a result through looking into it. "Sale of goods act" and "trade descriptions" act are good quotes to use should you ever get any hastle from a vendor in future. :-)
Under UK law, your issue is with the company you bought it from, not the manufacturer. This is why you got a better result when you contacted Amazon in the end. Check out the Trading Standards website for more info, but basically when something dies, go back to the shop.
You've just figured out how the news industry works!! At worst, all you ever have to do is issue a retraction, but the 90% of folk who saw the original miss it. That's why most citizens still believe that Iraq was involved in 9-11 and had WMD.
That took me a good minute to stop laughing there. You don't buy a portable player for quality. The sound in my mobile phone is as good as your iPod. In fact, as mine can play way more formats, I'd bet at least one of them was superiour to the iPod suppporting ones.
A commercial media is not free media. Our media is more limited than you are aware; no big consipiracy, just the nature of the beast.
Then why were many of the authors of the constitution directly involved in the slave trade? You have no "sacred rights" as a slave.
Yes, I made the 90% number up. It was to illustrate a point, not make a scientific claim. And you need to look up the definition of "trojan". IIS got wormed, different thing altogether. An ideal app can be impervious to a worm, which is an external attack. A trojan is when you get something hidden in something you choose to download. No OS ever made is secure against that, except perhaps some hypothetical trusted-computing platform, which no one wants.
My point with the 90% was that the user is largely responsible for vetting trojans. Download your software from the official source, check the checksums and you will likely never get a virus like the one in the article. Don't run open ports, you won't get wormed.
Should linux make it big on the desktop, the installers have to be easy to use. Sure, you do it the correct way and it's all well and good. However, you still need to create your /opt/mozilla directory, which requires root access to both create and lock down so that regular users cannot mess around with it. Someone needs root access at some point in order to configure it correctly. You do it manually, and you are safe. Grandad wouldn't...
It would be trivial to clean this up, since any rights it would have would be that of the user under which Firefox is running.
And said installer would ask "please enter root password to proceed". As you say, it's a PEBKAC problem.
And installing the app is the problem. Ever heard of "preinstall" and "postinstall" scripts? That's where you deploy your malware.
You picked the wrong guy to call "windows fanboy"; I used Unix exclusively until well after Win 98 SE was out.