Congratulations on being an asshole who's kids hate you and will want nothing to do with you later in life after they move out.
I'm a parent, not a friend.
Your kids in high school are plenty capable of making their own decisions
Then we should make kids emancipated at 14. Or is that a bad idea?
the only way you teach them how to be a responsible adult is to TREAT them like one
I have to keep them safe enough to reach adulthood, and that means (in part) protecting them from their own inexperience, lack of brain development, and hormone imbalances. A kid is, by definition, not an adult and should only be given the responsibility and respect that they earn. Even then, you must stay on top of them because no teenager has the life experience to avoid bad situations.
Your attitude has nothing to do with the well being of your children and everything to do with your personal desire to lord power over others.
I'm actually more libertarian-leaning, so I'm not sure where you get off making that assumption. My attitude is 100% driven by my desire to raise healthy, productive adults. Many "good kids" get mixed up in drugs through no fault of parenting - many kids are just not capable of making mature, informed decisions. I'm not talking about sheltering kids - I'm talking about having all the facts to judge and direct your parenting. I'm sorry, but I won't just "trust" that my kids aren't taking drugs or meeting predatory people (online or elsewhere). They will have full privacy when they leave my house.
Good luck convincing the judge that when your daughter drags you to court for sexual harassment.
Maybe I'm slow, but how does zero privacy translate to me putting the moves on my little girl?
Everyone has the right to some basic level of privacy.
A 4 month-old has absolutely no right to privacy. An 18-year-old has full privacy rights. Somewhere in between, there is a slow transition. Some kids will be able to handle more privacy than others.
If you don't understand that, then internet access is the least of your parenting worries.
Nonsense. This is "trust, but verify". My kids have no privacy, period, end of discussion. I remember raging hormones and the inability to make a lucid choice - that is why they are in parental care until 18, which frankly is still too young but you have to cut the cord eventually. Besides, if you can throw them into battle it is hard to argue that they don't have the right to make up their own minds.
Why so pedantic? It is clear that he is referring to what Sprint advertises as 4G. It is not the parent's job to fix Sprint marketing - his only objective should be to communicate clearly, which he did.
If someone threatens to kill you, it doesn't matter much what the law says.
No argument there. What I'm saying is that, at least in the US, I would hope that the President would at least consider existing rule of law before threatening someone's life. Prior to the "kill switch" discussion, there was nothing in place. Now at least there is a bill being considered which sets up rules and a process that a President would, in theory at least, have to follow.
IMHO, this is a *good* discussion... not only does it force the government to be a bit more transparent and predictable, but it is much better than having the conversation AFTER the fact. That some agree and some disagree with the law is a byproduct of democracy:)
I understand your viewpoint, but disagree. I think it is better to have the discussion and set the ground rules for when such action should be taken. Maybe the answer is "never", but it's better to hash that out now rather than after it is used.
To put it another way, if we collectively refuse or restrict to grant the government use of a "kill switch", it becomes very difficult for a future president to take such action without risk of impeachment. If we don't talk about it and set ground rules, then future use might be more tempting.
To say nothing of minimizing the effect of the use on companies - simply pulling the plug at gunpoint cannot be a "graceful shutdown":)
The difference is only one of who was involved in the planning. If you involve the telcos/isps/etc then they can plan for it. Otherwise, the "plan" is a list of telco sites and some guys with automatic weapons in jeeps.
Renewal goes through Apple too since Apple owns your information.
My apologies if I have this wrong, but my understanding is that you must opt-in to giving your information to the third-party (the phone/pad asks you if you want to share).
So potentially a customer could buy a subscription through the app, and then grant permission for the publisher to get their information. Personally I probably wouldn't click on that "Yes" button, but if the publishers were smart they would add some kind of incentive.
I can't even lecture you on the time-value of money, because you would have had to earn over 40% or so on that $300 in order to be better off investing it.
Of course, that makes you wonder what sort of beverage the TiVo financial guys were ingesting when they came up with the "lifetime" plan...
I like to pirate entertainment. It's more convenient for me. Until the legit product is as convenient, I will continue to "pirate". I'm not afraid to pay - when my mother wanted access to online video, I didn't show her how to set up a usenet service and subscription... instead, I bought her a netflix membership. Hell, my usenet service costs more than a netflix service, so it's not about cost.
Sorry to disappoint you. Don't travel through the midwest! I've met people who do this from eastern OH, western PA, and someone from IL. The interwebs seem to indicate it is Scottish in origin.
With Apple's hardware generally a generation behind PCs or Android phones, it fills a specialty niche role, not a high end role.
I'm not sure I follow... At any moment, there may be one or possibly two other high-end phones that equal the specs of the iPhone - and even then it is difficult to do a 1:1 comparison because different companies use different strategies to strike a compromise between performance and battery life. In any event, I've never heard anyone say with a straight face that the current-generation iPhone is not high-end. Not highest-end, sure, but usually it is among the top in terms of specs and capability.
It's easy to argue that McDonalds don't make the best burgers
I find this to be an odd analogy... McDonalds goes for the low end and Apple goes for the high end. And Nike has a product spread from the relative cheap to the fairly high end (for athletic shoes), while Apple has no such spread.
You'd have to look at a company that does not measure success with market share. To use a car analogy, they are more like BMW. High end with no low-end offerings, limited selection, and content to occupy only that space.
The iPhone is for people who are willing to drop a couple hundred on a phone, who don't have philosophical problems with Apple's walled garden, who don't need a keyboard, who like the large app library, and who are attracted to the overall simplicity. People who still want a smart phone but don't see exactly what they want with the Apple have a large selection of Motorola, HTC, Samsung, and other models running a variety of OSes. People who want a no-nonsense experience and a keyboard can get a Blackberry. And of course, many, many people still buy the "Chevy" - the flip or feature phone.
First of all, before you make me Google all of this crap that he's said over the years, just think about it: what makes Bin Laden so mad at us? Does he hate us for our freedoms? Doesn't that sound absurd to you? Does he hate us for simply existing?
How about our success? Does he hate that and resent us because we are a big pile of heathens? Why not go after China or India, then - closer to home and not even the same God!
Honestly, these things are absurd without doing any kind of research at all, and when people who are educated enough to know better say these things I question their motives.
Anyway, here is what you asked for:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.
* "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders" (23 February 1998)
We say our terror against America is blessed terror in order to put an end to suppression, in order for the United States to stop its support to Israel.
* Video statement broadcast on the Arabic-language Al-Jazeera TV station. (26 December 2001)
Just like you kill us, we will kill you.
* Audiotape aired on Al-Jazeera (12 November 2002)
And to directly contradict your assertion:
Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example.
* Videotape broadcast on al-Jazeera TV as reported by BBC (29 October 2004)
I would hope with every fiber of my being that they would tell him to stuff it.
I think you would be disappointed - Twitter is a corporation, and a US corporation at that.
If he told the military to do it I would also hope to God that they would refuse the order.
He's the commander-in-chief. While I'd hope that the generals would ask the right questions, I have every expectation that they would follow his order if there were - to abuse a phrase - "clear and present danger".
They are trying to make the position of President an Imperial office with no limits on its power.
It is that already - he has control over the military and the ability to issue executive orders. It's a minor miracle that no president has ever defied the rulings of the Supreme Court in any significant way. After all, the Supreme Court has no army and no ability to enact legislation. FDR has openly said that he would have defied them on the bond-gold issue in the 30s, but they ruled in his favor so who knows what would have happened.
I never said that:) I'm just wondering why you are fighting a battle that is lost. I'm not sure what form of government you have in mind, but I'd love to know how it will be better for us overall and how you will prevent the urge people have to seek security.
But tell me something, is the "war on terror" being lost, that these measures have to be considered?
I do not think it is being lost. Perversely, I think this is because we "took the battle to them", which will probably hurt us long-term. But in the short-run, if you can kill Americans at home, why get on a plane?
Why on earth would a government want to give up these powers?
Ask congress, who is apparently letting the sun set on the Patriot Act.
Why do you feel you need more "security"? Or is it all just a bloody sham?
Of course it is a sham. But a pragmatic person either has to play the game or be left out of the loop completely. It hurts to give up on an ideal, and it makes one less of a person, but hell - it can get things done. I don't understand the whole Don Quixote thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations on being an asshole who's kids hate you and will want nothing to do with you later in life after they move out.
I'm a parent, not a friend.
Your kids in high school are plenty capable of making their own decisions
Then we should make kids emancipated at 14. Or is that a bad idea?
the only way you teach them how to be a responsible adult is to TREAT them like one
I have to keep them safe enough to reach adulthood, and that means (in part) protecting them from their own inexperience, lack of brain development, and hormone imbalances. A kid is, by definition, not an adult and should only be given the responsibility and respect that they earn. Even then, you must stay on top of them because no teenager has the life experience to avoid bad situations.
Your attitude has nothing to do with the well being of your children and everything to do with your personal desire to lord power over others.
I'm actually more libertarian-leaning, so I'm not sure where you get off making that assumption. My attitude is 100% driven by my desire to raise healthy, productive adults. Many "good kids" get mixed up in drugs through no fault of parenting - many kids are just not capable of making mature, informed decisions. I'm not talking about sheltering kids - I'm talking about having all the facts to judge and direct your parenting. I'm sorry, but I won't just "trust" that my kids aren't taking drugs or meeting predatory people (online or elsewhere). They will have full privacy when they leave my house.
Good luck convincing the judge that when your daughter drags you to court for sexual harassment.
Maybe I'm slow, but how does zero privacy translate to me putting the moves on my little girl?
Everyone has the right to some basic level of privacy.
A 4 month-old has absolutely no right to privacy. An 18-year-old has full privacy rights. Somewhere in between, there is a slow transition. Some kids will be able to handle more privacy than others.
If you don't understand that, then internet access is the least of your parenting worries.
Nonsense. This is "trust, but verify". My kids have no privacy, period, end of discussion. I remember raging hormones and the inability to make a lucid choice - that is why they are in parental care until 18, which frankly is still too young but you have to cut the cord eventually. Besides, if you can throw them into battle it is hard to argue that they don't have the right to make up their own minds.
If the kids think their punishment is bad for what they did at naughtysite.com, wait until they sue me!
Why so pedantic? It is clear that he is referring to what Sprint advertises as 4G. It is not the parent's job to fix Sprint marketing - his only objective should be to communicate clearly, which he did.
If someone threatens to kill you, it doesn't matter much what the law says.
No argument there. What I'm saying is that, at least in the US, I would hope that the President would at least consider existing rule of law before threatening someone's life. Prior to the "kill switch" discussion, there was nothing in place. Now at least there is a bill being considered which sets up rules and a process that a President would, in theory at least, have to follow.
IMHO, this is a *good* discussion... not only does it force the government to be a bit more transparent and predictable, but it is much better than having the conversation AFTER the fact. That some agree and some disagree with the law is a byproduct of democracy :)
This is semantic bullshit.
I understand your viewpoint, but disagree. I think it is better to have the discussion and set the ground rules for when such action should be taken. Maybe the answer is "never", but it's better to hash that out now rather than after it is used.
To put it another way, if we collectively refuse or restrict to grant the government use of a "kill switch", it becomes very difficult for a future president to take such action without risk of impeachment. If we don't talk about it and set ground rules, then future use might be more tempting.
To say nothing of minimizing the effect of the use on companies - simply pulling the plug at gunpoint cannot be a "graceful shutdown" :)
Same thing, different name.
The difference is only one of who was involved in the planning. If you involve the telcos/isps/etc then they can plan for it. Otherwise, the "plan" is a list of telco sites and some guys with automatic weapons in jeeps.
Where do you get your 40%?
Because you have to pull 10/mo out of the 300 principle :)
Between EVIL Amazon and EVIL Apple, I'm running out of tears for the publishing industry.
</sarcasm>
Renewal goes through Apple too since Apple owns your information.
My apologies if I have this wrong, but my understanding is that you must opt-in to giving your information to the third-party (the phone/pad asks you if you want to share).
So potentially a customer could buy a subscription through the app, and then grant permission for the publisher to get their information. Personally I probably wouldn't click on that "Yes" button, but if the publishers were smart they would add some kind of incentive.
I can't even lecture you on the time-value of money, because you would have had to earn over 40% or so on that $300 in order to be better off investing it.
Of course, that makes you wonder what sort of beverage the TiVo financial guys were ingesting when they came up with the "lifetime" plan...
who likes to pirate entertainment.
I like to pirate entertainment. It's more convenient for me. Until the legit product is as convenient, I will continue to "pirate". I'm not afraid to pay - when my mother wanted access to online video, I didn't show her how to set up a usenet service and subscription... instead, I bought her a netflix membership. Hell, my usenet service costs more than a netflix service, so it's not about cost.
Do you consider drinking human blood and eating human flesh normal?
How else can you possess the deceased's talents and powers? Sheesh!
Sorry to disappoint you. Don't travel through the midwest! I've met people who do this from eastern OH, western PA, and someone from IL. The interwebs seem to indicate it is Scottish in origin.
In parts of the US that usage is perfectly cromulent.
Seriously, people from Pittsburgh pretty much all talk that way.
He won that battle, but will he win the war? :)
Sounds like a movie trailer.
Yeah, but wouldn't I loose all of my Slashdot karma if I came up with the perfect car analogy? :)
With Apple's hardware generally a generation behind PCs or Android phones, it fills a specialty niche role, not a high end role.
I'm not sure I follow... At any moment, there may be one or possibly two other high-end phones that equal the specs of the iPhone - and even then it is difficult to do a 1:1 comparison because different companies use different strategies to strike a compromise between performance and battery life. In any event, I've never heard anyone say with a straight face that the current-generation iPhone is not high-end. Not highest-end, sure, but usually it is among the top in terms of specs and capability.
to say that he "lost" because we're still in the Middle East is just pedantic.
I'd say it is pretty much central to the statement "Face it, the terrorists have won", which is what I was replying to. They certainly have not.
Have we won? I'd argue that we have not.
It's easy to argue that McDonalds don't make the best burgers
I find this to be an odd analogy... McDonalds goes for the low end and Apple goes for the high end. And Nike has a product spread from the relative cheap to the fairly high end (for athletic shoes), while Apple has no such spread.
You'd have to look at a company that does not measure success with market share. To use a car analogy, they are more like BMW. High end with no low-end offerings, limited selection, and content to occupy only that space.
The iPhone is for people who are willing to drop a couple hundred on a phone, who don't have philosophical problems with Apple's walled garden, who don't need a keyboard, who like the large app library, and who are attracted to the overall simplicity. People who still want a smart phone but don't see exactly what they want with the Apple have a large selection of Motorola, HTC, Samsung, and other models running a variety of OSes. People who want a no-nonsense experience and a keyboard can get a Blackberry. And of course, many, many people still buy the "Chevy" - the flip or feature phone.
Can you support that?
First of all, before you make me Google all of this crap that he's said over the years, just think about it: what makes Bin Laden so mad at us? Does he hate us for our freedoms? Doesn't that sound absurd to you? Does he hate us for simply existing?
How about our success? Does he hate that and resent us because we are a big pile of heathens? Why not go after China or India, then - closer to home and not even the same God!
Honestly, these things are absurd without doing any kind of research at all, and when people who are educated enough to know better say these things I question their motives.
Anyway, here is what you asked for:
And to directly contradict your assertion:
he achieved all these results
But those weren't his objectives. Yes, he caused fear and over-reaction. But his cause is even further from victory than when he started.
There is a cliche here somewhere about everyone losing, I think.
I would hope with every fiber of my being that they would tell him to stuff it.
I think you would be disappointed - Twitter is a corporation, and a US corporation at that.
If he told the military to do it I would also hope to God that they would refuse the order.
He's the commander-in-chief. While I'd hope that the generals would ask the right questions, I have every expectation that they would follow his order if there were - to abuse a phrase - "clear and present danger".
They are trying to make the position of President an Imperial office with no limits on its power.
It is that already - he has control over the military and the ability to issue executive orders. It's a minor miracle that no president has ever defied the rulings of the Supreme Court in any significant way. After all, the Supreme Court has no army and no ability to enact legislation. FDR has openly said that he would have defied them on the bond-gold issue in the 30s, but they ruled in his favor so who knows what would have happened.
I am not allowed to think the way I do?
I never said that :) I'm just wondering why you are fighting a battle that is lost. I'm not sure what form of government you have in mind, but I'd love to know how it will be better for us overall and how you will prevent the urge people have to seek security.
But tell me something, is the "war on terror" being lost, that these measures have to be considered?
I do not think it is being lost. Perversely, I think this is because we "took the battle to them", which will probably hurt us long-term. But in the short-run, if you can kill Americans at home, why get on a plane?
Why on earth would a government want to give up these powers?
Ask congress, who is apparently letting the sun set on the Patriot Act.
Why do you feel you need more "security"? Or is it all just a bloody sham?
Of course it is a sham. But a pragmatic person either has to play the game or be left out of the loop completely. It hurts to give up on an ideal, and it makes one less of a person, but hell - it can get things done. I don't understand the whole Don Quixote thing.