I had an Ipod Mini which I came to dislike because the clickwheel doesn't work well when you can't see it (it's straped to my side when I run), doesn't work when I have gloves on or really cold fingers, and seems to constantly be changing the setting for the "clicker" from "off" to "on, speaker."
The Itunes software was also very clunky and I had a long period of time that it didn't connect to the ipod because, for some reason, it recognized my network drive as the Ipod and was putting the music there. I really need music when I run - especially when I run marathons. I thought I had a fully loaded Ipod for my last marathon and the night before at the Hotel I realized there was NO music on the Ipod despite Itunes saying there was (because it was putting it on a network drive).
AND I thought the new Napster Service was what I really wanted (subscription - $15 a month and you can get all the music you want onto your approved player).
So I swapped my free Ipod Mini (yes, free) for a Dell Pocket DJ that has a much better design, battery life, ease of use, and 25% more space, and signed up for the NApster deal. It's great! I have 800 songs already loaded and every week the new albums are available.
That sounds like what Real offers - except they are throwing in an extra 25 songs that I can own (I still have to pay $0.99 for each song I want to own from Napster). I will check out the software and definitly switch if the thing works.
I suspect that this study is merely a cover/excuse for the grad student(s) doing the study to play games for 8 hours a day and get the Uni to pay for it.
Instead of doing the correct thing and pushing for a change in the appointment laws of these positions, the White House has taken it upon itself to abuse the privileges
Why should they? All positions - ones the Senate has excused from A&C - are political. They always have been, always will be.
Besides, if this was a problem, the Senate could TAKE AWAY or DEMAND review of these positions.
These positions don't require the A&C anyway, and you are misreading the Constitution. Since these are not offices created by the Constitution or by the Senate, they do not have the right to review them. Just like the President's personal staff. Whether he has one or not is of his own volition. He has a given budget and the freedom to spend it in almost anyway he wants regarding personnel.
Despite the poor use of italics (I should preview), everything I posted came right out of the parents post and demonstrated the savage hypocracy of the left.
This reminds me of the FDIC's policy on banks. If a small bank screws up, the FDIC will shut it down and refund it's depositors their 100k or whatever. But some banks that do poorly are determined to be 'too big to fail' and the FDIC steps in to shore them up financially and reform them.
The result has been accusations of biase (banks that operate in poor areas being shut down) and carelessness/riskyness on behalf of large banks who know that if the risks don't pay off, they have a safety net.
All offices don't require Senate confirmation. Very few appointments do. The most important appointments within an administration often don't (like chief of staff).
People is policy. That this administration is being more vigilant about it is irrelevant. And yes, no one cares about anything other than that because even though the article doesn't mention names, surely they can be found and their backgrounds discussed.
Let me turn it around - If these really are inconsequential positions, why are there so many posts here whining about an administration appointing people that *gasp* don't want it run out of town.
COmpared to the European governments, the administration has been notably willing to put people in the minority/non-majority alliance into positions of power, including re-nominating Clinton appointed judges, appointing a Democrat to his cabinet, and putting Democrats in charge of his social security reform commission.
The thing has almost no players depending on the time of day - it has never surpassed AC in it's subscription numbers. It brought nothing new to MMORPGs except fancy graphics that most people's PCs at the time could not handle.
There might be a small spark of life when the expansions releases, but it's delaying the inevitable. AC2 will not last the year.
The copyright law is an attempt to standardize agreements so that enforcement is eased. What the law is or is not isn't what we disagree upon.
Nothing I said suggests any kind of warlordism- what the French court did is warlordism. I stated that I'd rather the market settle these issues. Only buy movies without DRM protection if that is what suits you.
At any rate, so what if it was David Duke? Is there any indication that one's political or racial viewpoint is hindering the individual's capacity to determine telecommunications standards?
Maybe. And the position on the international board would bolste the individuals reputation and assist them in reaching positions where idiology/policy does matter. If you were going to put someone on this board, it would make sense to put someone there that you could call on for assistance later on as an adviser in areas that might involve policy.
Besides, this whole entire debate here on/. is for bashing W. If it was really about qualified people not being on the board, how come I have not seen a mention of their names, or comparisons of their technical backgrounds with those who are replacing them (and I doubt there is much difference).
A careful examination of J Kerry's voting record marks him as a socialist. On every issue where he has had a chance to voice support or opposition to government intervention in the economy, in all of his speeches discussing economic matters, there is a clear biase in favor of socialism.
In any other country, the Democrats would be known as either Socialists or Socialist Democrats, as they are throughout Europe.
In a recent speech, Gov. Arnold of CA stated that when he heard democrats speaking in this country, they sounded like socialists from his own home country of Austria.
The person I was responding to was saying that it was illegal.
Is it the wrong thing to do? It depends. So they gave money to Kerry. What if they gave money to David Duke? At what point does it register? Also, the position does have a lot of cache and people in these positions seem to hold themselves out as experts in other areas (see the unquoted 'industry source' bashing Bush.
I would be sceptical of the article because it itself is likely written from a biased or even lazy source. Note that sentence isn't qualified with a real person, just "industry sources." I by default disqualify that when I see it in a news story. Having known journalists and been repeatedly misquoted by them, I have first hand experience.
There is nothing wrong with what the adminstration here is doing - and it wouldn't be wrong no matter the administration doing it. I seem to recall the Clinton administration doing the same thing with an even more mundane task - the WH travel office - not even because they didn't agree with their politics but because they wanted to put one of their cronies in charge.
Why is it important that the administration have people that reflect their ideology on a 'standards' board? Because these boards can be stepping stones to greater positions where ideology becomes more important - so not only do they not want to let contrary policy makers appear on the board, they want to get their own people on those boards so that they may have that experience.
Look down the rode from here. Just as the 'industry source' bad mouths the administration here, think about the Kerry supporter who does get on one of these 'standard' boards and later, because he was on this board (BUT THEY JUST DO STANDARDS, RIGHT??), is a 'industry source' and goes off the record bashing the (Jeb) Bush administration.
You are incorrect prima fascia - if it was a first amendment violation, this would be in court - and it's not and won't be.
There is nothing wrong with this no matter who does it. All those complaining are doing so out of ignorance. This is a democracy, not some philosopher kings' republic out of Plato's imagination where the wise rule because they are wise. When a President (or his agents - herein the state department) is elected, they are entitled to appoint individuals to office as they seem fit - everything from Sec of Defense down to attendees at international confereces.
Also, this administration is a capitalist one and as such would not want socialists/marxists helping to shape international policy. One way to determine someone's idiological bent is by their political contributions, and those who support Kerry over Bush either are not capitalists or do not care very much about capitalism, in either case making them inapprorpriate representatives of the United States wherein we elected a President who reflects our views to the contrary.
My dispute isn't that the 'law' isn't one way or not (especially in France, where law is as subjective as it was in the pre-Hamurabi days). My dispute is that such 'law' should not exist in such a way as to interfere with the negotiated and agreed to terms for purchase and used determined by the buyer and the seller. The state's interest is in seeing the terms enforced, not in determining them (though it is reasonable for there to be limits on what is enforced - IE - minors signing contracts, mentally incapable, etc).
Ah - you are right that it is a matter of 'copyright law' - my point is that it should not be. The government as a third party has no moral right to interfere with a voluntary agreement between two parties. Surely the producer did not put a gun to your head when you purchased that Spiderman 2 DVD, did he?
Why can't you and someone you do business with make your own terms of agreement?
The materials involved in commercial transactions exist as one party has the right to set terms that another may agree to, disagree to, or offer alternative terms. This artificial limit placed by the French government causes harm, ultimately, to both parties by preventing them from coming to agreements as they mutually and consentually see fit.
While it may seem fair in the long term to the purchaser, he too is ultimately harmed because of the adverse change in behavior, particularly long term, of the seller. This includes possibilities such as lower quality films, less films, no films, a lesser talent pool for actors, directors, etc.
If you do not want to buy a movie without DRM, the odds are you just won't be able to buy it - they are a package deal. But to bring the government into this.... what next - arguing in court to have Jar-Jar removed from the Star Wars movie because you don't like that part of the package deal, either?
Slashdot Mirror
Man, I saw the parent and thought to myself, where is ringbarer when you need him, and Bang - there he is, right under my threshold!
The Itunes software was also very clunky and I had a long period of time that it didn't connect to the ipod because, for some reason, it recognized my network drive as the Ipod and was putting the music there. I really need music when I run - especially when I run marathons. I thought I had a fully loaded Ipod for my last marathon and the night before at the Hotel I realized there was NO music on the Ipod despite Itunes saying there was (because it was putting it on a network drive).
AND I thought the new Napster Service was what I really wanted (subscription - $15 a month and you can get all the music you want onto your approved player).
So I swapped my free Ipod Mini (yes, free) for a Dell Pocket DJ that has a much better design, battery life, ease of use, and 25% more space, and signed up for the NApster deal. It's great! I have 800 songs already loaded and every week the new albums are available.
That sounds like what Real offers - except they are throwing in an extra 25 songs that I can own (I still have to pay $0.99 for each song I want to own from Napster). I will check out the software and definitly switch if the thing works.
I suspect that this study is merely a cover/excuse for the grad student(s) doing the study to play games for 8 hours a day and get the Uni to pay for it.
Why should they? All positions - ones the Senate has excused from A&C - are political. They always have been, always will be.
Besides, if this was a problem, the Senate could TAKE AWAY or DEMAND review of these positions.
These positions don't require the A&C anyway, and you are misreading the Constitution. Since these are not offices created by the Constitution or by the Senate, they do not have the right to review them. Just like the President's personal staff. Whether he has one or not is of his own volition. He has a given budget and the freedom to spend it in almost anyway he wants regarding personnel.
Despite the poor use of italics (I should preview), everything I posted came right out of the parents post and demonstrated the savage hypocracy of the left.
Yeah, those free ipod folks suck.
The result has been accusations of biase (banks that operate in poor areas being shut down) and carelessness/riskyness on behalf of large banks who know that if the risks don't pay off, they have a safety net.
People is policy. That this administration is being more vigilant about it is irrelevant. And yes, no one cares about anything other than that because even though the article doesn't mention names, surely they can be found and their backgrounds discussed.
Let me turn it around - If these really are inconsequential positions, why are there so many posts here whining about an administration appointing people that *gasp* don't want it run out of town.
COmpared to the European governments, the administration has been notably willing to put people in the minority/non-majority alliance into positions of power, including re-nominating Clinton appointed judges, appointing a Democrat to his cabinet, and putting Democrats in charge of his social security reform commission.
a bizarre form of cronyism as practiced by the Republicans, where those who donate to their campaigns are rewarded with handouts from the Treasury....
...Not much better than Grey Davis.
If there is no monthly subscription, how do they maintain the game?
The thing has almost no players depending on the time of day - it has never surpassed AC in it's subscription numbers. It brought nothing new to MMORPGs except fancy graphics that most people's PCs at the time could not handle.
There might be a small spark of life when the expansions releases, but it's delaying the inevitable. AC2 will not last the year.
Nothing I said suggests any kind of warlordism- what the French court did is warlordism. I stated that I'd rather the market settle these issues. Only buy movies without DRM protection if that is what suits you.
Ah. So the court had to step in because the consumer was too stupid to read the fine print. Now it makes total sense. Thanks for clearifying.
Maybe. And the position on the international board would bolste the individuals reputation and assist them in reaching positions where idiology/policy does matter. If you were going to put someone on this board, it would make sense to put someone there that you could call on for assistance later on as an adviser in areas that might involve policy.
Besides, this whole entire debate here on /. is for bashing W. If it was really about qualified people not being on the board, how come I have not seen a mention of their names, or comparisons of their technical backgrounds with those who are replacing them (and I doubt there is much difference).
In any other country, the Democrats would be known as either Socialists or Socialist Democrats, as they are throughout Europe.
In a recent speech, Gov. Arnold of CA stated that when he heard democrats speaking in this country, they sounded like socialists from his own home country of Austria.
Is it the wrong thing to do? It depends. So they gave money to Kerry. What if they gave money to David Duke? At what point does it register? Also, the position does have a lot of cache and people in these positions seem to hold themselves out as experts in other areas (see the unquoted 'industry source' bashing Bush.
Funny, Slashdot must be taking notes from the Bush Admin as my post above just got modded down for disagreeing with the editorial slant of /.
There is nothing wrong with what the adminstration here is doing - and it wouldn't be wrong no matter the administration doing it. I seem to recall the Clinton administration doing the same thing with an even more mundane task - the WH travel office - not even because they didn't agree with their politics but because they wanted to put one of their cronies in charge.
Why is it important that the administration have people that reflect their ideology on a 'standards' board? Because these boards can be stepping stones to greater positions where ideology becomes more important - so not only do they not want to let contrary policy makers appear on the board, they want to get their own people on those boards so that they may have that experience.
Look down the rode from here. Just as the 'industry source' bad mouths the administration here, think about the Kerry supporter who does get on one of these 'standard' boards and later, because he was on this board (BUT THEY JUST DO STANDARDS, RIGHT??), is a 'industry source' and goes off the record bashing the (Jeb) Bush administration.
There is nothing wrong with this no matter who does it. All those complaining are doing so out of ignorance. This is a democracy, not some philosopher kings' republic out of Plato's imagination where the wise rule because they are wise. When a President (or his agents - herein the state department) is elected, they are entitled to appoint individuals to office as they seem fit - everything from Sec of Defense down to attendees at international confereces.
Also, this administration is a capitalist one and as such would not want socialists/marxists helping to shape international policy. One way to determine someone's idiological bent is by their political contributions, and those who support Kerry over Bush either are not capitalists or do not care very much about capitalism, in either case making them inapprorpriate representatives of the United States wherein we elected a President who reflects our views to the contrary.
My dispute isn't that the 'law' isn't one way or not (especially in France, where law is as subjective as it was in the pre-Hamurabi days). My dispute is that such 'law' should not exist in such a way as to interfere with the negotiated and agreed to terms for purchase and used determined by the buyer and the seller. The state's interest is in seeing the terms enforced, not in determining them (though it is reasonable for there to be limits on what is enforced - IE - minors signing contracts, mentally incapable, etc).
Ah - you are right that it is a matter of 'copyright law' - my point is that it should not be. The government as a third party has no moral right to interfere with a voluntary agreement between two parties. Surely the producer did not put a gun to your head when you purchased that Spiderman 2 DVD, did he?
The materials involved in commercial transactions exist as one party has the right to set terms that another may agree to, disagree to, or offer alternative terms. This artificial limit placed by the French government causes harm, ultimately, to both parties by preventing them from coming to agreements as they mutually and consentually see fit.
While it may seem fair in the long term to the purchaser, he too is ultimately harmed because of the adverse change in behavior, particularly long term, of the seller. This includes possibilities such as lower quality films, less films, no films, a lesser talent pool for actors, directors, etc.
If you do not want to buy a movie without DRM, the odds are you just won't be able to buy it - they are a package deal. But to bring the government into this.... what next - arguing in court to have Jar-Jar removed from the Star Wars movie because you don't like that part of the package deal, either?
That's not funny. I hope Peter Hurst's wife doesn't read this.
Even in the original game, I'm sure you've seen all the stuff done with warthogs.
Also, contrary to what you are saying, I heard the original Halo ran horribly on PC.
Would you say that HL2 has substantially better physics than Halo2?