I'd be upset too, if I didn't know that apple released new products yearly with their masterplan of planned obsolescence.
And if you're an Apple fan and don't know this, you're not paying attention.
I don't think I would call it planned obsolescence...tech is advancing just that fast, and the products being replaced are NOT obsolete; they still work, and work well. Do you expect Apple to slow down product development just so you don't feel the need to upgrade every year?
Then, as a private project, I built a half adder with washing machine relays but it never worked properly because of power supply problems (which was the 12v transformer from my train set).
With a few exceptions, most people don't want to leave a voice mail, so the fact that they do, either means they want to give you information, or to tell you to call them back.
On top of that, if they can give you the information in the voicemai, there is no need for you to call them back, or for them to call you again. A second call isn't necessary, saving everybody time.
If you think that simply converting all voice mail to text is going to solve the problem, you're missing out. I would think that a jog-wheel to allow me to speed up the voice mails, along with some audio or visual cues to let me know when the message ends would be much more efficient than speech-to-text while maintaining all the meta-information. Just get rid of those stupid menus completely.
I suggest you find somebody with an iPhone and try visual voicemail. It's like e-mail, except you listen to the messages instead of reading them, and in any order you choose. You can swipe back and forth in the message to re-listen to parts, and the slider shows time elapsed and time remaining while listening to the message. The message is labeled with the time and date of the call as well as the caller's name if in your contacts list.
At the start of the year, I tried going back to a Motorola RAZR for daily use, and the first thing that I missed enough to go back was visual voicemail.
* If I buy an original potatoe at a store and I reproduce it and share copies with my friends, why isn't that called theft? Making that initial potatoe available can potentially cost the store thousands in lost potatoe sales.
Monsanto has already done this with farmers using some of their seeds. Monsanto has even gone after farmers who don't use Monsanto seed, but get cross-pollinated from crops that do use the engineered seed.
And BTW...toss out the "Dan Quayle does Spelling" book. It's 'potato':) (had to toss that one in there)
I read this, and this was the first thought that came to mind...
WHAT THE FUCK?????
I can only come up with two possible explanations for this:
(1) Somebody at the Fusion Center has a big sense of humor and a REALLY BIG set of cajones to put this in a legitimate report, or (2) It's computer-generated.
I just can't believe anybody is really stupid enough to associate millions of anonymous posts on Internet forums with a "loose coalition of Internet denizens."
"A settlement conference will be held in the above-referenced matter on March 30, 2009 and March 31, 2009 beginning at 9:00 a.m., in Chambers, Suite 15E, U.S. Courthouse, 300 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, before Chief Judge Michael J. Davis."
Largely, the change was made so that if they made, say, a Facebook TV commerical and they flashed your picture on the screen, they didn't have to pull the TV ad if you deleted your account.
If that is the case, then don't use user-generated content in the ad. The "fee" I (used to) pay was screen real estate for the ads that Facebook inserted into the web pages. In return for this, Facebook provided the services of the site. That's the transaction. If the royalty-free, perpetual, etc. use of user content is the payment for services rendered, the user ends up paying for the service long after the service is discontinued.
Would you continue to pay for telephone service after canceling it? I didn't think so.
It appears, on the surface, that the old ToS is back in effect; the ToS page is dated September 23, 2008.
It does bring to mind a new question. If you delete content and thus revoke Facebook's omnipotent rights to your now-deleted content, how does Facebook ensure that the content is no longer used by those sub-licensors? I can appreciate the need to spell out that Facebook is going to make copies of posted content as part of serving up Web pages, spreading server load, backups, etc., but how about not going any farther than that?
Maybe if Facebook drops the terms that they claim the right to use posted content for other commercial purposes (in particular sub-licensing) I may consider giving it another try; but otherwise, forget it. The bright spot in all this is that it has (finally) awakened me to really read the ToS when setting up accounts on websites like this.
As I see it, it's not a question of privacy; it's a question of copyright. Facebook is claiming the right to use posted data in any way deemed fit, including sublicensing that content to other companies. If I post a short story or a picture gallery to a website and that content gets copied and used commercially by some other party, I have a valid claim of copyright violation and can pursue that in civil court. According to the ToS, Facebook could do the same thing and I would have no recourse.
Of course, now going back to review the ToS, it appears that the old ToS has been restored, so perhaps the backlash has had the desired effect.
The problem is software being delivered as binaries. Binary software distribution is holding back progress, making it necessary to continue supporting old kludgy architectures instead of making a clean break to something new and modern.
How would you address the issue of software distribution to home users, who may have neither the time or patience to wait for the compilation process? I'll assume for now that the compiling would be added as part of the installation process.
"Pro" or "power" users that pay for big apps may appreciate the flexibility, but home users, as we all know, want it to "just work."
Currently I can detect between 11 and 16 on a regular basis, with maybe another 7 or 8 APs that only show up now & then depending on time of day/weather/phase of moon etc.
With that many visible, why even deal with your own...use one of theirs!:)
* Circuit City -- Find the item, take it to the cashier, see it ring up at 125% of the shelf-listed price, and be told "Sorry, what the cash register says is what goes."
Isn't that...illegal? I thought there was some law enacted that stated that if something rang up at the register for more than it was priced on the shelf, the seller was obligated to reduce the price by double the discrepancy.
And given that the printing company has been using it longer...how long do you thing it will take Google to send a C&D letter or threaten to sue for trademark infringement?
Bad form to reply to oneself, but I watched the History Channel show again last night, and it's two planes, not three, that fly as Air Force One--one is Air Force One, and one backup. The rest of the entourage flies ahead in various Air Force transports, carrying along the advance team, presidential vehicles, etc.
On the flip side if it came out that the US is buying a European plane rather than a US made plane I'd be at least somewhat upset. The only way a European substitute would make sense is if the operating cost was at least 33% less than the Boeing equivalent.
There may actually be a legal precedent for not buying a foreign-built plane. I can't recall the name of the law, but I heard there is some law that states that the US military cannot procure capital equipment (ships, aircraft, etc.) from foreign companies. As the planes used to transport the President are Air Force aircraft, I would presume that they must, by law, be procured from US companies.
It's not one 747. Last time "W" visited the UK, it took 3 (yes three) jumbos to haul him and his entourage from the USA.
I thought I saw on the History Channel that two of them serve to scout ahead for actual on-scene weather or to serve as decoys or a backup in case the real Air Force One has a problem.
It generally will not sell cheap, as the auctions on eBay show. Buyers will pay a premium to get an iPhone sans contract to unlock and use on the carrier of choice. Also, the early termination fee only applies if you cancel service entirely. I just canceled my data plan and went back to my RAZR, no termination fee required since I kept the voice service. Now I also had my service for four months so that may have been a factor.
Apple needs to address security by offering a mandatory PIN login that cannot be disabled by the user, and a remote wipe function. Without those two, you can forget about corporations allowing these things to VPN in and access the Exchange server.
The remote wipe was added with the 2.0 software. From the Apple website:
IT administrators can securely manage any iPhone that contains confidential company information using remote wipe and enforced security and password policies. These device configuration and remote management capabilities allow IT departments to quickly and seamlessly deploy iPhone throughout their companies.
This may also answer your concern for mandatory password/PIN protection.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet it wasn't a chick magnet in 1984, either.
Did you try using the "permanent press" cycle?
On top of that, if they can give you the information in the voicemai, there is no need for you to call them back, or for them to call you again. A second call isn't necessary, saving everybody time.
I suggest you find somebody with an iPhone and try visual voicemail. It's like e-mail, except you listen to the messages instead of reading them, and in any order you choose. You can swipe back and forth in the message to re-listen to parts, and the slider shows time elapsed and time remaining while listening to the message. The message is labeled with the time and date of the call as well as the caller's name if in your contacts list.
At the start of the year, I tried going back to a Motorola RAZR for daily use, and the first thing that I missed enough to go back was visual voicemail.
Monsanto has already done this with farmers using some of their seeds. Monsanto has even gone after farmers who don't use Monsanto seed, but get cross-pollinated from crops that do use the engineered seed.
And BTW...toss out the "Dan Quayle does Spelling" book. It's 'potato' :) (had to toss that one in there)
This page is International Paper's feedback form. Tell them how you feel about this.
In addition to that, let your Congressional representation know too--OK it's Congress, but it might help anyway.
OK, April 1 was over a week ago!
I read this, and this was the first thought that came to mind...
WHAT THE FUCK?????
I can only come up with two possible explanations for this:
(1) Somebody at the Fusion Center has a big sense of humor and a REALLY BIG set of cajones to put this in a legitimate report, or
(2) It's computer-generated.
I just can't believe anybody is really stupid enough to associate millions of anonymous posts on Internet forums with a "loose coalition of Internet denizens."
From the court order:
"A settlement conference will be held in the above-referenced matter on March 30,
2009 and March 31, 2009 beginning at 9:00 a.m., in Chambers, Suite 15E, U.S.
Courthouse, 300 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, before Chief Judge Michael
J. Davis."
Nice editing job, kdawson.
Dammit, I lost that bet!
If that is the case, then don't use user-generated content in the ad. The "fee" I (used to) pay was screen real estate for the ads that Facebook inserted into the web pages. In return for this, Facebook provided the services of the site. That's the transaction. If the royalty-free, perpetual, etc. use of user content is the payment for services rendered, the user ends up paying for the service long after the service is discontinued.
Would you continue to pay for telephone service after canceling it? I didn't think so.
It appears, on the surface, that the old ToS is back in effect; the ToS page is dated September 23, 2008.
It does bring to mind a new question. If you delete content and thus revoke Facebook's omnipotent rights to your now-deleted content, how does Facebook ensure that the content is no longer used by those sub-licensors? I can appreciate the need to spell out that Facebook is going to make copies of posted content as part of serving up Web pages, spreading server load, backups, etc., but how about not going any farther than that?
Maybe if Facebook drops the terms that they claim the right to use posted content for other commercial purposes (in particular sub-licensing) I may consider giving it another try; but otherwise, forget it. The bright spot in all this is that it has (finally) awakened me to really read the ToS when setting up accounts on websites like this.
As I see it, it's not a question of privacy; it's a question of copyright. Facebook is claiming the right to use posted data in any way deemed fit, including sublicensing that content to other companies. If I post a short story or a picture gallery to a website and that content gets copied and used commercially by some other party, I have a valid claim of copyright violation and can pursue that in civil court. According to the ToS, Facebook could do the same thing and I would have no recourse.
Of course, now going back to review the ToS, it appears that the old ToS has been restored, so perhaps the backlash has had the desired effect.
What? I've never heard of this!
How would you address the issue of software distribution to home users, who may have neither the time or patience to wait for the compilation process? I'll assume for now that the compiling would be added as part of the installation process.
"Pro" or "power" users that pay for big apps may appreciate the flexibility, but home users, as we all know, want it to "just work."
With that many visible, why even deal with your own...use one of theirs! :)
Isn't that...illegal? I thought there was some law enacted that stated that if something rang up at the register for more than it was priced on the shelf, the seller was obligated to reduce the price by double the discrepancy.
And given that the printing company has been using it longer...how long do you thing it will take Google to send a C&D letter or threaten to sue for trademark infringement?
Bad form to reply to oneself, but I watched the History Channel show again last night, and it's two planes, not three, that fly as Air Force One--one is Air Force One, and one backup. The rest of the entourage flies ahead in various Air Force transports, carrying along the advance team, presidential vehicles, etc.
There may actually be a legal precedent for not buying a foreign-built plane. I can't recall the name of the law, but I heard there is some law that states that the US military cannot procure capital equipment (ships, aircraft, etc.) from foreign companies. As the planes used to transport the President are Air Force aircraft, I would presume that they must, by law, be procured from US companies.
I thought I saw on the History Channel that two of them serve to scout ahead for actual on-scene weather or to serve as decoys or a backup in case the real Air Force One has a problem.
You can't? Gee, then how do I get sound out of the speakers I have plugged into my Airport Express?
That's what I get for waiting until the last minute *grumble*
It generally will not sell cheap, as the auctions on eBay show. Buyers will pay a premium to get an iPhone sans contract to unlock and use on the carrier of choice. Also, the early termination fee only applies if you cancel service entirely. I just canceled my data plan and went back to my RAZR, no termination fee required since I kept the voice service. Now I also had my service for four months so that may have been a factor.
The remote wipe was added with the 2.0 software. From the Apple website:
IT administrators can securely manage any iPhone that contains confidential company information using remote wipe and enforced security and password policies. These device configuration and remote management capabilities allow IT departments to quickly and seamlessly deploy iPhone throughout their companies.
This may also answer your concern for mandatory password/PIN protection.