If you're a criminal and you're using a cell phone or, especially, a smart phone to conduct your criminal activities, you deserve what you get. Stupidity often solves a lot of problems that way.
Ok, I have no clue who the guy is but, if I were on the Nokia board and looking for a new CEO to help raise Nokia back to relevance in the face of the iPhone's success, I would look to a Google exec before one from Microsoft. Not to be a smartass, but why would you hire an exec from a company that hasn't yet figured out how to combat Apple's success in the smartphone market when you need an exec who knows how to combat Apple's success in the smartphone market? Google, at least, is giving Apple a run for its money and is making the smartphone market interesting. Microsoft has... well, nothing in the smartphone market.
Does anyone talk about the Google police? What's that? You didn't know that apps also have to pass Google approval for inclusion in their Android market? Funny how nobody talks about that _even though Google has not approved apps (plural)._ It's not like people are just posting anti-Apple comments and ignoring other companies doing the exact same thing, in the exact same market.
Could we please try to insert more anti-Apple bias in our article summaries please. I find Slashdot entirely too soft on Apple lately and would like to see it come to an end. We need to be harsher against them, dammit! Rather than "...have submitted an iPod version to the Apple software police" could we please instead use "...have submitted an iPod version to the Apple software Nazis." I mean, if we're going to broadcast an overwhelming bias against Apple in the article summaries (as opposed to just keeping them to the comments - I mean, who bothers to read the comments, after all), we might as well Godwin it at the same time, right?
Specifically, "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (emphasis added)" Hate speech is one of those limits. That is NOT freedom of speech. It is freedom of speech, within certain limitations. So, no, we do not have freedom of speech.
If you would like a recent example of this, read about Ann Coulter (prominent right wing speaker who has been known to make some... questionable statements) coming to speak in Canada - she was warned "Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here. Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
Specifically, "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (emphasis added)" Hate speech is one of those limits. That is NOT freedom of speech. It is freedom of speech, within certain limitations. So, no, we do not have freedom of speech.
If you would like a recent example of this, read about Ann Coulter (prominent right wing speaker who has been known to make some... questionable statements) coming to speak in Canada - she was warned "Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here. Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
If only they'd focus on giving consumers what they want; they'd make a ton more money.
They'd have a ton more happy and satisfied (loyal) customers but I don't know if they'd make more money. I'm sure they've done the math and figured out that nickle and diming us at every turn results in more dollars in their pockets, despite annoying the crap out of us on a regular basis and, since happy customers aren't their goal, they've followed the money.
It would be nice if a content provider was able to build a viable business model based around happy customers but, thus far, it seems to be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - a nice dream but never gonna happen.
But why would I care about a phone that I don't want that does things that I don't need? Compare that with a phone that I do want that does everything that I need it to do and I think you'll see which is the clear winner. If I'm going to consider a different phone, I'll consider an Android offering long before the N900 but that's largely because Android is basically a total copy of the iPhone which is a phone that I want which does everything I need it to do.
Yes. I agree. Oppressive it is. I've always viewed Canada as an oppressive country what with it's hate speech laws and all.
Oh. I'm sorry - you didn't know? Canada does not have freedom of speech _and_ Canada does have laws against hate speech. Clearly, Canada has a world-wide reputation for being oppressive, right?
While the submitter makes it sound like they disagree with Rackspace's decision (head boggle...), I would like to say good. Good for them. Freedom of speech does not mean that everyone must listen to you. Freedom of speech does not mean every company must assist you in delivering a message they disagree with. Freedom of speech means the government can't shut you down because they don't like your message. I, as an individual, can shut you off. Companies that disagree with you have no requirement to broadcast your message.
Good for Rackspace. They did the right thing.
And, to the church I say this - you're hateful fucks. I hope you find out that your God isn't quite so accepting of hateful actions like that.
Is it possible they would be interested in Flash content?
The only consumers that give a rat's ass about Flash content work for Adobe. If the lack of Flash content was actually a factor in people's purchasing decisions, the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad would not be as successful as they are. Perhaps the "but what about Flash" hype is only important to people who are not considered "the market". Perhaps, if you think on that, it will tell you something.
Said like a true Slashdot reader who hasn't clued into the fact that we are not the norm. We are, in fact, the fringe power users who like to play with our devices. We are the people who aren't held back by Apple's walled garden - we know how to jailbreak, if we want out of the garden. Heck, we are the people who actually know that Apple offers a walled garden approach and actually have an opinion on it. The rest of the market - the people who make up the vast majority of consumer purchases - don't know and if you tell them, they don't care. They use their device and they enjoy the process.
Seriously, we are not the norm. There's a reason "The Year of Linux" has never materialized...
Given that this is a company that blew up their entire operating system to, more or less, start from scratch, I would not be the least bit surprised if they decided to do this with iTunes if they feel that it has bloated too far off track. Say whatever you want about Apple but they are, and have long been, a company that is willing to make tough decisions if they feel it is the right one. They do not shy away from the hard choice like so many other companies do.
Do they need to blow up iTunes and start fresh? Well, I'm sure everyone will have a different opinion on that but, if Apple starts to think that way I am certain it won't be long before they actually push the plunger and rebuild from the ashes.
I bought the movie when it came out on DVD because I'd wanted to see it in theatres but missed it and heard it was worth the money.
I really enjoyed the movie and was happy to see it earn some Oscar recognition.
Now that they are backing this sort of action against people, I regret giving them any of my money. I will no longer recommend this movie. I regret supporting this movie if they are so willing to participate in a legal action that I find offensive. The copyright laws, as they exist, were designed to combat _commercial_ piracy and that's a battle I support. Suing individuals for the same monetary damages that are designed to discourage commercial infringement is abusive.
Jurors aren't supposed to have made up their minds until they've heard all the details of the case. They are supposed to enter the process with an open mind. Thinking the a person is guilty before even hearing the defense is the height of not having an open mind.
Why are people having such a hard time understanding what network neutrality means? Paid prioritization pretty much is the exact _opposite_ of network neutrality. Thus, any net neutrality plan that included provisions for paid prioritization are NOT NET NEUTRALITY PLANS!
Watching that video is incredibly cool and the geek in my is really impressed with it on many levels. I must admit, however, I also find it kinda scary. I guess ignorance is bliss - I know that there are a ton of rocks floating around out there but seeing it graphically presented like that just makes me think it's damn lucky we haven't be pulverized into the stone age...
I'm going to focus, instead, on just how cool it was because, really, it was damn cool.
Um, I hate the obviously anti-Apple news as much as the next Apple fanboi but this is hardly negative Apple news. In fact, I can't find even a vague hint of anything negative being directed at Apple in this situation.
More so, this is kind of a big deal in the geek and tech industry. If this doesn't qualify as news than I have absolutely no understanding of the word. I would say that the employee of one of the top tech companies being caught in a scam where he made off with over $1 million dollars is quite certainly news for nerds and stuff that matters.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're a criminal and you're using a cell phone or, especially, a smart phone to conduct your criminal activities, you deserve what you get. Stupidity often solves a lot of problems that way.
Ok, I have no clue who the guy is but, if I were on the Nokia board and looking for a new CEO to help raise Nokia back to relevance in the face of the iPhone's success, I would look to a Google exec before one from Microsoft. Not to be a smartass, but why would you hire an exec from a company that hasn't yet figured out how to combat Apple's success in the smartphone market when you need an exec who knows how to combat Apple's success in the smartphone market? Google, at least, is giving Apple a run for its money and is making the smartphone market interesting. Microsoft has ... well, nothing in the smartphone market.
A very, very weird choice...
Does anyone talk about the Google police? What's that? You didn't know that apps also have to pass Google approval for inclusion in their Android market? Funny how nobody talks about that _even though Google has not approved apps (plural)._ It's not like people are just posting anti-Apple comments and ignoring other companies doing the exact same thing, in the exact same market.
Yeah.
Could we please try to insert more anti-Apple bias in our article summaries please. I find Slashdot entirely too soft on Apple lately and would like to see it come to an end. We need to be harsher against them, dammit! Rather than "...have submitted an iPod version to the Apple software police" could we please instead use "...have submitted an iPod version to the Apple software Nazis." I mean, if we're going to broadcast an overwhelming bias against Apple in the article summaries (as opposed to just keeping them to the comments - I mean, who bothers to read the comments, after all), we might as well Godwin it at the same time, right?
sigh...
I posted this reply above but, since you seem to be saying the same (incorrect) thing, I'll repost it here as well. Mod redundant as necessary.
... questionable statements) coming to speak in Canada - she was warned "Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here. Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Canada
Specifically, "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (emphasis added)" Hate speech is one of those limits. That is NOT freedom of speech. It is freedom of speech, within certain limitations. So, no, we do not have freedom of speech.
If you would like a recent example of this, read about Ann Coulter (prominent right wing speaker who has been known to make some
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Canada
... questionable statements) coming to speak in Canada - she was warned "Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here. Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
Specifically, "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (emphasis added)" Hate speech is one of those limits. That is NOT freedom of speech. It is freedom of speech, within certain limitations. So, no, we do not have freedom of speech.
If you would like a recent example of this, read about Ann Coulter (prominent right wing speaker who has been known to make some
If only they'd focus on giving consumers what they want; they'd make a ton more money.
They'd have a ton more happy and satisfied (loyal) customers but I don't know if they'd make more money. I'm sure they've done the math and figured out that nickle and diming us at every turn results in more dollars in their pockets, despite annoying the crap out of us on a regular basis and, since happy customers aren't their goal, they've followed the money.
It would be nice if a content provider was able to build a viable business model based around happy customers but, thus far, it seems to be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - a nice dream but never gonna happen.
But why would I care about a phone that I don't want that does things that I don't need? Compare that with a phone that I do want that does everything that I need it to do and I think you'll see which is the clear winner. If I'm going to consider a different phone, I'll consider an Android offering long before the N900 but that's largely because Android is basically a total copy of the iPhone which is a phone that I want which does everything I need it to do.
Yes. I agree. Oppressive it is. I've always viewed Canada as an oppressive country what with it's hate speech laws and all.
Oh. I'm sorry - you didn't know? Canada does not have freedom of speech _and_ Canada does have laws against hate speech. Clearly, Canada has a world-wide reputation for being oppressive, right?
I'm just sayin'.
ISPs aren't common carriers. Common misconception, but they aren't.
While the submitter makes it sound like they disagree with Rackspace's decision (head boggle...), I would like to say good. Good for them. Freedom of speech does not mean that everyone must listen to you. Freedom of speech does not mean every company must assist you in delivering a message they disagree with. Freedom of speech means the government can't shut you down because they don't like your message. I, as an individual, can shut you off. Companies that disagree with you have no requirement to broadcast your message.
Good for Rackspace. They did the right thing.
And, to the church I say this - you're hateful fucks. I hope you find out that your God isn't quite so accepting of hateful actions like that.
That's an expensive test just to see if you like something. Most people would prefer spending the money on something they're certain they will like.
Citation please. Short of spreading FUD, do you have any proof of your claim or are you just talking out of your ass?
That wasn't trolling.
This might be constituted as trolling: You're an idiot.
Whether or not it's trolling, however, it's true. You're an idiot.
Wow. Care to throw a Hitler reference in there to make that complete?
Is it possible they would be interested in Flash content?
The only consumers that give a rat's ass about Flash content work for Adobe. If the lack of Flash content was actually a factor in people's purchasing decisions, the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad would not be as successful as they are. Perhaps the "but what about Flash" hype is only important to people who are not considered "the market". Perhaps, if you think on that, it will tell you something.
Said like a true Slashdot reader who hasn't clued into the fact that we are not the norm. We are, in fact, the fringe power users who like to play with our devices. We are the people who aren't held back by Apple's walled garden - we know how to jailbreak, if we want out of the garden. Heck, we are the people who actually know that Apple offers a walled garden approach and actually have an opinion on it. The rest of the market - the people who make up the vast majority of consumer purchases - don't know and if you tell them, they don't care. They use their device and they enjoy the process.
Seriously, we are not the norm. There's a reason "The Year of Linux" has never materialized...
Given that this is a company that blew up their entire operating system to, more or less, start from scratch, I would not be the least bit surprised if they decided to do this with iTunes if they feel that it has bloated too far off track. Say whatever you want about Apple but they are, and have long been, a company that is willing to make tough decisions if they feel it is the right one. They do not shy away from the hard choice like so many other companies do.
Do they need to blow up iTunes and start fresh? Well, I'm sure everyone will have a different opinion on that but, if Apple starts to think that way I am certain it won't be long before they actually push the plunger and rebuild from the ashes.
I bought the movie when it came out on DVD because I'd wanted to see it in theatres but missed it and heard it was worth the money.
I really enjoyed the movie and was happy to see it earn some Oscar recognition.
Now that they are backing this sort of action against people, I regret giving them any of my money. I will no longer recommend this movie. I regret supporting this movie if they are so willing to participate in a legal action that I find offensive. The copyright laws, as they exist, were designed to combat _commercial_ piracy and that's a battle I support. Suing individuals for the same monetary damages that are designed to discourage commercial infringement is abusive.
Fuck them.
Anyone wanna revisit why eBay bought 'em in the first place?
eBay bought Skype for $2.6 billion and is now rumored to be on the verge of selling it for $5 billion.
I would imagine the reason eBay bought Skype is something along the lines of "to make $2.4 billion dollars profit" though I could be mistaken.
Jurors aren't supposed to have made up their minds until they've heard all the details of the case. They are supposed to enter the process with an open mind. Thinking the a person is guilty before even hearing the defense is the height of not having an open mind.
Why are people having such a hard time understanding what network neutrality means? Paid prioritization pretty much is the exact _opposite_ of network neutrality. Thus, any net neutrality plan that included provisions for paid prioritization are NOT NET NEUTRALITY PLANS!
sigh...
Won't somebody please think of the artists?
Isn't that the rallying cry of the copyright cartels?...
Watching that video is incredibly cool and the geek in my is really impressed with it on many levels. I must admit, however, I also find it kinda scary. I guess ignorance is bliss - I know that there are a ton of rocks floating around out there but seeing it graphically presented like that just makes me think it's damn lucky we haven't be pulverized into the stone age...
I'm going to focus, instead, on just how cool it was because, really, it was damn cool.
Um, I hate the obviously anti-Apple news as much as the next Apple fanboi but this is hardly negative Apple news. In fact, I can't find even a vague hint of anything negative being directed at Apple in this situation.
More so, this is kind of a big deal in the geek and tech industry. If this doesn't qualify as news than I have absolutely no understanding of the word. I would say that the employee of one of the top tech companies being caught in a scam where he made off with over $1 million dollars is quite certainly news for nerds and stuff that matters.