"I've never seen a telemarketer who can pop up the number of someone I want to hear from."
You don't seem to understand the purpose of a phone. What if a friend from decades past tried to call me. She has a new last name because she's married. I want to be able to answer that call without being harassed by a phone solicitor.
"No, I don't."
Can you explain how the list violates commercial speech but yet the machine does not? You seem inconsistent in your belief.
On last comment, the right to commercial speech is limited. At one time it was completely non-existent. You seem to be under the impression that commercial speech and the speech of citizens are somehow synonymous. They are not. The government has full legal authority to regulate commercial speech. That is exactly why the list does not apply to political or non-profit groups.
Do you even have a phone?! The vast majority of phone solicitors get around caller ID quite easily. And secondly, there is no way in heck that I'm going to pay for a phone and get only half the use out of it.
Your argument is that people should not be able to decide if they don't want commercial calls. That's exactly what the list is, people deciding to place their number on a list which retailers are not supposed to call.
You also argue that when faced with phone solicitations, people can either stop taking all calls or simply hang up.
Right now you are deciding that you don't want me to call, that's why you are not giving out your number. And I'm not sure why, as you are well within your rights to not answer you phone or to simply hang up when I call. Please explain how this is different? Why do phone solicitors have more rights than me?!
Here is an analogy. I've seen for sale a device you can connect to your phone to which blocks unwanted calls. It's sort of like an answering machine. Here is how it works: when someone calls, the device answers the call for you. Only after the caller enters a password would the phone actually ring. Thus, someone who used the device could effectively block calls from all solicitors.
Do you think this product is also violative of a businesses' right to commercial speech?
The only way I know whether a call is legitimate or a telemarketer is by answering it. If I accept your argument, I might as well turn my ringer off, which kind of defeats half the purpose of having a phone.
And secondly, you obviously do NOT believe in your argument because you refuse to give me your home phone number. You can't have it both ways. If telemarketers have the right to call me, then I have the right to call you. Either give me your phone number or shut up.
It was meant to be funny, but it was not a joke. I mistakenly assumed that the Portable Media Center player could not play MP3s. It makes no sense that if both players can play illegal music, why one user is more likely a thief than a user of a different player.
But like you say, the only way Ballmer's comment makes sense is if you assume he's nuts. And he most certainly is.
So what if the software that comes with the Portable Media Center only rips in DRM files?! It's perfectly legal under the Home Recording Act to make copies and compilations of our music for non-profit use.
If Ballmer is arguing that users of the iPod are thieves because they are ripping their own CD collections into a non-DRM file format, he is utterly wrong.
I'm forced to get off my butt, to get out of the shower, to run back into the house and hear someone say, "Buy what I'm selling" even after I notified them that I do not want them to call.
If you truly agree with your opinion, PLEASE give me your phone number so I can discuss it with you in person. You are free to hang up if I choose to call you during dinner, when you're watching TV, or when you're sleeping.
You're right that this could not have occurred without Allen or someone else's money. But whether Allen obtained his money selling proprietary software, from selling used cars, or from selling crack, it does not bear on the validity of open source software.
Linux and open source are certainly effective in the real world. Open source makes companies effective: http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-506585 9.html?tag=l h
Open source appears to be quite effective in building cheap supercomputers via clustering.
And open source appears to be quite effective in running most of the web via Apache.
The burden is NOT on us. If someone argues a point, it is up to them to prove it, not for someone else to disprove.
Ballmer argues that iPod users are thieves because the iPod can be loaded with MP3s. But, Microsoft's Portable Media Center player also can be loaded with MP3s.
Where is the evidence that users of Microsoft's new player do not fill it with MP3s?! Is it because no one has bought one yet?!
It's a simple fact that both Apple's and Microsoft's players can play illegal music. If he believes that iPod users are more likely to steal, I want to see proof of it!
I was just following up with what Ballmer said. I totally agree that iPods can be fully used for legal purposes. Your complaint is with Ballmer not with me.
I'm not the one making the assumptions. I'm just following up with what Ballmer said. I totally agree that iPods can be fully used for legal purposes. Your complaint is with Ballmer not with me.
The 20 gig iPod holds 10,000 songs. At a buck a song, that's $10,000 to fill it up. I don't know anyone with that kind of money. Sure there are some old people, like myself, who own decades worth of CDs to rip, but a lot of young people are buying iPods.
It sounds to me that Microsoft's Portable Media Player will NOT play MP3s. However, if it ONLY plays DRM invested WMA files it will NOT sell.
The only thing that will stop software patents is if big business wises up and realizes that they're bad for business. I.e., with software patents, there will be impossible to innovate without being sued into submission.
Congress and the patent office will NEVER change the rules without pressure from business because the patent offices makes a LOT of money selling patents.
I'm not saying we shouldn't educate people about the issue or that we shouldn't discuss the issue, I'm just saying not to get your hopes up.
It does not matter if Sun doesn't make a dime off such asinine patents. Sun will still be able to force anyone else from performing the same task. I.e., eliminate any new competition.
Sun is essentially going on a murderous rampage, but claming that all bodies will be donated to science.
Once again, a.safe domain sounds good, but somewhere a government would have to get involved to decide whether a particular content is "safe." The only difference would be that the government currently attempts to determine what is porn, with your idea, the government would attempt to determine what isn't porn. I don't see much of a difference. Either way the government is dictating content.
I buy Linux machines to reformat and install a warez version of Microsoft's Windows XP Starter Edition. Merely having product activation telling me how much I can upgrade my hardware was not draconian enough. I want an OS that also tells me how many programs I can open and what resolution I can use. Damn-it, freedom is overrated!
I totally agree that an XXX domain would be a nice idea. However, some government agency would be forced to interpret which content should go under the domain, or put another way, decide which content is pornographic. In other words, we'd be in the same boat now.
Some judge somewhere would determine that Maximonline.com should be in the XXX domain. Some other judge might even determine that www.theonion.com should be under the XXX domain. I've seen penises there.
The best approach is to simply put some responsibility on the user. If you don't like porn, don't visit porn sites. If you're tricked into viewing a porn site, simply close your browser.
If you're worried about your kids viewing porn on line, simply be with them when they are surfing. I know that's hard, because I do it with mine. But you'd never consider leaving your kids alone in a city, so why leave them alone on the web?
Slashdot Mirror
When aliens from a parallel anti-universe invade our planet, you'll be glad our government wasted, er... I mean spent our tax dollars so wisely.
"I've never seen a telemarketer who can pop up the number of someone I want to hear from."
You don't seem to understand the purpose of a phone. What if a friend from decades past tried to call me. She has a new last name because she's married. I want to be able to answer that call without being harassed by a phone solicitor.
"No, I don't."
Can you explain how the list violates commercial speech but yet the machine does not? You seem inconsistent in your belief.
On last comment, the right to commercial speech is limited. At one time it was completely non-existent. You seem to be under the impression that commercial speech and the speech of citizens are somehow synonymous. They are not. The government has full legal authority to regulate commercial speech. That is exactly why the list does not apply to political or non-profit groups.
Do you even have a phone?! The vast majority of phone solicitors get around caller ID quite easily. And secondly, there is no way in heck that I'm going to pay for a phone and get only half the use out of it.
Your argument is that people should not be able to decide if they don't want commercial calls. That's exactly what the list is, people deciding to place their number on a list which retailers are not supposed to call.
You also argue that when faced with phone solicitations, people can either stop taking all calls or simply hang up.
Right now you are deciding that you don't want me to call, that's why you are not giving out your number. And I'm not sure why, as you are well within your rights to not answer you phone or to simply hang up when I call. Please explain how this is different? Why do phone solicitors have more rights than me?!
Here is an analogy. I've seen for sale a device you can connect to your phone to which blocks unwanted calls. It's sort of like an answering machine. Here is how it works: when someone calls, the device answers the call for you. Only after the caller enters a password would the phone actually ring. Thus, someone who used the device could effectively block calls from all solicitors.
Do you think this product is also violative of a businesses' right to commercial speech?
The only way I know whether a call is legitimate or a telemarketer is by answering it. If I accept your argument, I might as well turn my ringer off, which kind of defeats half the purpose of having a phone.
And secondly, you obviously do NOT believe in your argument because you refuse to give me your home phone number. You can't have it both ways. If telemarketers have the right to call me, then I have the right to call you. Either give me your phone number or shut up.
It was meant to be funny, but it was not a joke. I mistakenly assumed that the Portable Media Center player could not play MP3s. It makes no sense that if both players can play illegal music, why one user is more likely a thief than a user of a different player.
But like you say, the only way Ballmer's comment makes sense is if you assume he's nuts. And he most certainly is.
So what if the software that comes with the Portable Media Center only rips in DRM files?! It's perfectly legal under the Home Recording Act to make copies and compilations of our music for non-profit use.
If Ballmer is arguing that users of the iPod are thieves because they are ripping their own CD collections into a non-DRM file format, he is utterly wrong.
I'm forced to get off my butt, to get out of the shower, to run back into the house and hear someone say, "Buy what I'm selling" even after I notified them that I do not want them to call.
If you truly agree with your opinion, PLEASE give me your phone number so I can discuss it with you in person. You are free to hang up if I choose to call you during dinner, when you're watching TV, or when you're sleeping.
... does the US Constitution give corporations the right to force people to listen to sales pitches against their will?!
We have a right to speak, but NO one has any obligation to listen!
You're right that this could not have occurred without Allen or someone else's money. But whether Allen obtained his money selling proprietary software, from selling used cars, or from selling crack, it does not bear on the validity of open source software.
5 9.html?tag=l h
Linux and open source are certainly effective in the real world. Open source makes companies effective:
http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-50658
Open source appears to be quite effective in building cheap supercomputers via clustering.
And open source appears to be quite effective in running most of the web via Apache.
It's only a matter of time before Microsoft files a patent suit against you for using OpenOffice.
The burden is NOT on us. If someone argues a point, it is up to them to prove it, not for someone else to disprove.
Ballmer argues that iPod users are thieves because the iPod can be loaded with MP3s. But, Microsoft's Portable Media Center player also can be loaded with MP3s.
Where is the evidence that users of Microsoft's new player do not fill it with MP3s?! Is it because no one has bought one yet?!
It's a simple fact that both Apple's and Microsoft's players can play illegal music. If he believes that iPod users are more likely to steal, I want to see proof of it!
I was just following up with what Ballmer said. I never called iPod users thieves, he did. I totally agree that the iPod has many legal uses.
My mistake. I got the information off of the iPod website, but it refers to the 40 gig player, not the 20 gig player. Sorry.
I was just following up with what Ballmer said. I totally agree that iPods can be fully used for legal purposes. Your complaint is with Ballmer not with me.
I'm not the one making the assumptions. I'm just following up with what Ballmer said. I totally agree that iPods can be fully used for legal purposes. Your complaint is with Ballmer not with me.
Microsoft's Portable Media Center player plays MP3s!!!!
p or tablemediacenter/faq.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/devices/
Does Ballmer know this?! Or is Ballmer simply lying through his ass?!
The 20 gig iPod holds 10,000 songs. At a buck a song, that's $10,000 to fill it up. I don't know anyone with that kind of money. Sure there are some old people, like myself, who own decades worth of CDs to rip, but a lot of young people are buying iPods.
It sounds to me that Microsoft's Portable Media Player will NOT play MP3s. However, if it ONLY plays DRM invested WMA files it will NOT sell.
The only thing that will stop software patents is if big business wises up and realizes that they're bad for business. I.e., with software patents, there will be impossible to innovate without being sued into submission.
Congress and the patent office will NEVER change the rules without pressure from business because the patent offices makes a LOT of money selling patents.
I'm not saying we shouldn't educate people about the issue or that we shouldn't discuss the issue, I'm just saying not to get your hopes up.
It does not matter if Sun doesn't make a dime off such asinine patents. Sun will still be able to force anyone else from performing the same task. I.e., eliminate any new competition.
Sun is essentially going on a murderous rampage, but claming that all bodies will be donated to science.
Once again, a .safe domain sounds good, but somewhere a government would have to get involved to decide whether a particular content is "safe." The only difference would be that the government currently attempts to determine what is porn, with your idea, the government would attempt to determine what isn't porn. I don't see much of a difference. Either way the government is dictating content.
I buy Linux machines to reformat and install a warez version of Microsoft's Windows XP Starter Edition. Merely having product activation telling me how much I can upgrade my hardware was not draconian enough. I want an OS that also tells me how many programs I can open and what resolution I can use. Damn-it, freedom is overrated!
I totally agree that an XXX domain would be a nice idea. However, some government agency would be forced to interpret which content should go under the domain, or put another way, decide which content is pornographic. In other words, we'd be in the same boat now.
Some judge somewhere would determine that Maximonline.com should be in the XXX domain. Some other judge might even determine that www.theonion.com should be under the XXX domain. I've seen penises there.
The best approach is to simply put some responsibility on the user. If you don't like porn, don't visit porn sites. If you're tricked into viewing a porn site, simply close your browser.
If you're worried about your kids viewing porn on line, simply be with them when they are surfing. I know that's hard, because I do it with mine. But you'd never consider leaving your kids alone in a city, so why leave them alone on the web?
Damn, I guess that means we'll have to put up with too many homosexual references and innuendos... not that there's anything wrong with that.
Wow, I wish I could use a computer platform where I'd have to wait years, pay more, and get less features!!! Sign me up!
My WinFast TV2000 XP tuner card has been able to do that for years now. It also cost 20 dollars less AND is also a TV card!
But it doesn't look like a shark, and to Mac-heads, appearance is more important than utility.