Why does it matter? Slashdot is more than a news site for nerds (though it could sometimes be argued that it's sometimes less than that...:) - it's also a forum for people to discuss these matters with other people who share similar interests. The discussions are a big reason why people come here. Thus, when one sees the discourse veering off course, one should care. When the normally balanced and intelligent discussions takes a shift to FUD (regardless of topic - Apple, Microsoft, patents, space, whatever), then the value of the discussions drops. So, yes, I care. I enjoy Slashdot because I learn a lot from the people here and value the discussions so I'd like to see FUD remain out of the discussions. In this case, it was about Apple. Yesterday it was a discussion falsely accusing TiVo of being a patent troll.
I see you make the Japan-fallacy again - that anyone who doesn't praise Apple must be doing so out of irrational hatred.
Are you saying that Rog7 (the poster to whom I replied) was posting a rational critique of Apple? I sure hope not because I didn't see anything remotely rational about it.
Apple is not perfect. There are many things I wish Apple did differently and I am more than fine with someone offering a legitimate and rational criticism of the company or their products. Lately, however, I've seen a growing trend of people hating on Apple because, well, that's what the cool kids are doing. No valid justification - just buying into the FUD.
Would you prefer I point out just how insincere I find it when people hate on Microsoft because they're Microsoft? I think it's the same thing - people offering no solid reason to hate a company other than it's cool to hate the company.
There are many reasons to like Apple and/or Microsoft. There are similarly many reasons to dislike Apple and/or Microsoft. Present those reasons and then a conversation can ensue.
As an example, Rog7 didn't state that he didn't like the fact that Apple has control over what apps are and are not approved on the app store - that he wished the platform was completely open so that stories like this didn't exist. That would be a stance I could understand - you dislike Apple because they aren't as open as you would like. Fine. He implied they approved the app for PR reasons (to avoid bad press) and suggested their track record for app approval was sub-par (not that he disliked _ANY_ app failing to be approved - that their track record "could be a bit better").
So, sorry, but I think those reasons for hating on Apple are irrational. There's no foundation in fact to support them. Sorry if you think that's a Japan-fallacy but it ain't.
Yes. You can complain. I, as a Canadian that can't get this Spotify service nor Hulu can complain louder though.;)
Seriously though, it's beyond annoying that there are now so many "services" on the world wide web that are not, in fact, world wide. I understand it's because the service only negotiated distribution rights within the US, or whatever, but I will never be a fan of region locks.
Yes, I know that one can use some services like TOR to get around region restrictions on the 'net (and add anonymity to my only activity) - I just haven't bothered to set up for one yet... Anyone have a recommendation of a service to use that is easy and seamless?
Unfortunately, I've got the distinct impression that Apple approved this app because it was poised to give them a lot of bad press if they didn't approve it. Maybe if their track record for app approval was a bit better, I'd be throwing kudos Apple's way, but at this point I'm pretty jaded.
Of course you're jaded because it's now en vogue to hate on Apple, the iPhone, and the app store. I mean, after all, they've sold/given away over a billion apps and have approved over 65,000 apps, but hey, their track record for app approval should be a bit better, right?
Let me say that last fact again - approved over 65,000 apps. Yes, there have been some apps that weren't approved along the way but I think it's insincere to imply they have a bad track record when, clearly, the vast majority of apps submitted for approval do get approved.
But, yeah, let's continue hating on Apple because that's the cool thing geeks do now. Let's continue implying that Apple regularly doesn't approve apps when there's no evidence to suggest such beyond a few rare and interesting apps that fail to get approved. Let's deny the facts that are right in front of us and instead buy into the FUD (I'm sure some marketing people at Microsoft are LOVING this).
I'm sure you'll ignore my post and write me off as an Apple fanboi...
I know people are keen to brand anyone who files patent infringement lawsuits as a patent troll but a real patent troll owns patents but makes nothing - their line of business is to buy patents and sue companies. TiVo actually produces something. They have products and offer something to customers. They are simply enforcing their patents. You are welcome to question the validity of their patents; you are welcome to question the wisdom in starting patent wars with other major companies but, let's keep our discussion real - they are not patent trolls.
Members of parliament need to be reminded that they work for us, not Big Media Corp. They need to be reminded that their job security depends heavily on our support, not the support of a corporate lobby group - especially a FOREIGN lobby group. Members of parliament need to become aware that serving the interests of the people whom they represent is their number one priority and serving the interests of lobby groups can come somewhere much further down on that list. They need to be reminded in the simplest and best way possible - they need to be informed that, if they fail to represent the best interests of the people, the people will replace them with someone who understands their role better. They need to be reminded that Big Media Corp might be represented by a large and powerful lobby group but "the population at large" is a much large, much more powerful lobby group and we, as the population at large", are willing to flex our muscles if we aren't being represented properly.
Ask for the "reimbursement" to be made in the form of a bonus so it's clear who owns the laptop - what you do with your bonus is your business. Yes, you'll have to pay taxes on it (I assume your tax laws count a bonus as income) but that's cheaper than the full price of the laptop and now it's yours, without question.
So long as there's 1) no contract to spell things out clearly and 2) the computer is "theirs", there will always be the risk of someone claiming the data on it is owned by them, not you. You may have an amazing relationship with your current boss but that situation may change (new boss, turn-for-the-worse in your relationship, whatever). If there's a contract in place, fine, but I suspect you're hesitant to ask that a contract be drawn up for just this situation.
Thus, if the company is willing to fork over the money, have them fork it over in a way that does not link it to the computer.
Or, of course, pay for it yourself. You obviously thought it was worth it given that you already bought it. Yes, an extra grand in your pocket is nice but you already decided you were willing to part with the money so if ownership of the data is important then you're not really out anything - it was an expense you were willing to pay.
It's not a philosophy. It's fiction. It's a _STORY_, not a (to quote) "study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument."
It's a sad statement on our outlook on life that making more money is more important to us than our long-term survival and well-being. There is no rational justification for ignoring the facts. Yes, some of the specific details may still be debated but the overall reality simply cannot be disputed by anyone with a hint of intelligence. Thus, the only reason I can imagine someone arguing against the facts that are before us is greed - they know that making some changes may (*MAY*) be more expensive (in the short term) and thus they want to fight against it in the hopes of making more money.
I don't think we deserve to be the dominant species on the planet any more... sigh...
Oh gawd, no. Please. No. Make it stop. No, really. Make this damn circus stop. How have they manage to continue this charade for this long and why are people enabling them to continue? Gawd almighty, make it stop. Please. I beg of you...
Then file charges for stalking which, to my knowledge, is illegal in most, if not all places in the US. During the course of investigating the stalking issue, if it comes to light that the stalker _also_ posted that material, _THEN_ add additional charges for slander (or libel - I forget which it was and always manage to pick the wrong one...). If she has a stalker then she can legitimately take action against the person now, without the need for finding other reasons.
Sorry - but I believe she thought it was her ex-boyfriend and she was out to fuck him over in a fit of petty, vindictive rage. When it turned out to not be her ex, she moved on. I could well be wrong, but that's certainly how it appears to me.
What does the person being close to her have to do with whether or not she'd press charges? If it's something worthy of putting before the courts, it shouldn't matter if the person is well-known to her or not. The only justification for pressing charges _only_ if the person is close to her is a personal vendetta "fuck you" played out through the court system. If she's unwilling to press charges against a stranger, she should be similarly unwilling to press charges against someone she knows. Sorry - it's abuse of the system, in my mind. It's using the legal system to play out something that most normal human beings handle on their own, like adults.
People should be charged when they intentionally and knowingly abuse the system (from filing bogus charges to initiating bogus lawsuits). Yes, I know, sometimes it's hard to tell when it's bogus and when it's just a "change of heart" but, often, an intelligent person can tell the difference. These sorts of abuses to the legal system harm its integrity and waste valuable resources that could be better spent dealing with, you know, real criminals and real societal problems. Were there actual consequences to abusing the system, perhaps people would be less inclined to play these sorts of games.
Sorry, but anyone who pays over $15k to "cure" themselves of addiction to the internet is an idiot. I can cure it for you faster, easier, and cheaper - in fact, you'll MAKE money.
Cancel.
Your.
Internet.
There. I saved you over $15k.
Sorry for the lack of sympathy but there are people out there with real addictions who need help. "Internet addiction" is a complete joke.
And, for anyone who is about to point out people who have an obsessive need to be online, don't confuse OCD behaviour with addiction. The two are different. One may lead to the other but they are not the same. People aren't addicted to the internet. Sorry.
Once ISPs start regulating what they will and will not transport over their cables, they open themselves up to all kinds of lawsuits. You're willing to block piratebay.com but you didn't prevent that creep from downloading child porn? You didn't prevent that hacker from breaking into his school's records? You didn't block all kinds of other activities that are illegal?
I hate the concept of "slippery slope" but this really is exactly that. Either ISPs will start blocking anything and everything they are told is "wrong" and become de facto thought police or they'll become vulnerable to all kinds of lawsuits for failing to block "this" content given that they're willing to block "that" content.
The smart thing for them to do is just be dumb pipes. Provide access to the internet and let the people decide how to use it. If they use it illegally, let the police sort it out. Unfortunately, the various lobby groups (MIAA, RIAA, and their ilk) are probably offering up sweet deals that are financially appealing. Now. Over time, however, it will all come back to bite them in the ass. By then, however, the people who made these decisions will be rich and have moved on to other endeavours and won't care that they've ruined these companies and destroyed the integrity of the internet...
(Of course, the big joke of all this is that the internet was designed to route around problems such as this. The entire point of it was to provide a communication tool that could perform even when major disruptions occur. Not to mention, as is proven every single day, there are more people trying to break through the controls than there are trying to create them. More > fewer, always. These restrictions will only ever amount to temporary solutions, at best. It's a game of cat and mouse that they simply cannot win, ever, regardless of how hard they try.)
It's a lot more complicated than it at first looks.
Well, that's not good because it sounds pretty damn complicated as it is. That said, I'm not a chemist, but still - it sure as hell doesn't sound simple...
While it's possible the tech just snapped and went apeshit on the guy (after all, there are violent headcases out there...), why do I get the feeling that there's a whole lot more to the story than we're getting from the victim?...
To me, the ideal approach to class balance is rock, paper, scissors. Using WoW as a frame for my post (since most people will be familiar with it), I liked the days when rogues were cloth killers but hunters were rogue killers but most mages were able to dismantle hunters. It was a perfect rock - paper - scissors balance. Sure, all the mages felt that rogues were over powered and rogues constantly complained that they couldn't get away from hunters and hunters bitched and moaned that mages 'sploited but, in the larger sense of the game, things were balanced. One-on-one, there were fights that you relished and fights that you had to run from and hope one of your teammates could pick up. It created an over-all balance.
The benefit to this approach is designers can overlook one class beating the crap out of another the majority of the time so long as the first class gets its ass handed to them by a third, and so on. It allows the game designers to not struggle with ensuring that every class is balanced against every other class which is an impossible, moving target. It simply cannot be done and any attempt to do so will only end in gamers complaining. If WoW (for instance) had come out and said "we balance PvP around rock - paper - scissors and hunters are the rock to your scissors, dear rogues - deal with it" I think the game would be in a better place.
Unfortunately, it is a very rare approach to class balance in an MMO because all those rogues are going to spend all their time on the forums complaining about hunters and demanding nerfs while the mages will complain about the rogues and the hunters will complain about the mages and nobody will realize the instances where they shine and instead focus only on the situations where they get their asses handed to them. Thus, game designers attempt to appease people and balance everyone against everyone else... Unfortunately...
Slashdot Mirror
Some more information on the deal.
The long and short of it is that this sounds a lot like the Disney/Pixar relationship.
Also, the idea of Marvel and Pixar talking to each other and being excited about the talks really interests me.
And I would like to blame the Inquirer for blaming Apple for blaming the customers.
Still plenty of blame to go around...
I believe 'em. I mean, they wouldn't lie to us, would they?...
Why does it matter? Slashdot is more than a news site for nerds (though it could sometimes be argued that it's sometimes less than that... :) - it's also a forum for people to discuss these matters with other people who share similar interests. The discussions are a big reason why people come here. Thus, when one sees the discourse veering off course, one should care. When the normally balanced and intelligent discussions takes a shift to FUD (regardless of topic - Apple, Microsoft, patents, space, whatever), then the value of the discussions drops. So, yes, I care. I enjoy Slashdot because I learn a lot from the people here and value the discussions so I'd like to see FUD remain out of the discussions. In this case, it was about Apple. Yesterday it was a discussion falsely accusing TiVo of being a patent troll.
So, yeah - I care.
I see you make the Japan-fallacy again - that anyone who doesn't praise Apple must be doing so out of irrational hatred.
Are you saying that Rog7 (the poster to whom I replied) was posting a rational critique of Apple? I sure hope not because I didn't see anything remotely rational about it.
Apple is not perfect. There are many things I wish Apple did differently and I am more than fine with someone offering a legitimate and rational criticism of the company or their products. Lately, however, I've seen a growing trend of people hating on Apple because, well, that's what the cool kids are doing. No valid justification - just buying into the FUD.
Would you prefer I point out just how insincere I find it when people hate on Microsoft because they're Microsoft? I think it's the same thing - people offering no solid reason to hate a company other than it's cool to hate the company.
There are many reasons to like Apple and/or Microsoft. There are similarly many reasons to dislike Apple and/or Microsoft. Present those reasons and then a conversation can ensue.
As an example, Rog7 didn't state that he didn't like the fact that Apple has control over what apps are and are not approved on the app store - that he wished the platform was completely open so that stories like this didn't exist. That would be a stance I could understand - you dislike Apple because they aren't as open as you would like. Fine. He implied they approved the app for PR reasons (to avoid bad press) and suggested their track record for app approval was sub-par (not that he disliked _ANY_ app failing to be approved - that their track record "could be a bit better").
So, sorry, but I think those reasons for hating on Apple are irrational. There's no foundation in fact to support them. Sorry if you think that's a Japan-fallacy but it ain't.
Yes. You can complain. I, as a Canadian that can't get this Spotify service nor Hulu can complain louder though. ;)
Seriously though, it's beyond annoying that there are now so many "services" on the world wide web that are not, in fact, world wide. I understand it's because the service only negotiated distribution rights within the US, or whatever, but I will never be a fan of region locks.
Yes, I know that one can use some services like TOR to get around region restrictions on the 'net (and add anonymity to my only activity) - I just haven't bothered to set up for one yet... Anyone have a recommendation of a service to use that is easy and seamless?
Unfortunately, I've got the distinct impression that Apple approved this app because it was poised to give them a lot of bad press if they didn't approve it. Maybe if their track record for app approval was a bit better, I'd be throwing kudos Apple's way, but at this point I'm pretty jaded.
Of course you're jaded because it's now en vogue to hate on Apple, the iPhone, and the app store. I mean, after all, they've sold/given away over a billion apps and have approved over 65,000 apps, but hey, their track record for app approval should be a bit better, right?
Let me say that last fact again - approved over 65,000 apps. Yes, there have been some apps that weren't approved along the way but I think it's insincere to imply they have a bad track record when, clearly, the vast majority of apps submitted for approval do get approved.
But, yeah, let's continue hating on Apple because that's the cool thing geeks do now. Let's continue implying that Apple regularly doesn't approve apps when there's no evidence to suggest such beyond a few rare and interesting apps that fail to get approved. Let's deny the facts that are right in front of us and instead buy into the FUD (I'm sure some marketing people at Microsoft are LOVING this).
I'm sure you'll ignore my post and write me off as an Apple fanboi...
I know people are keen to brand anyone who files patent infringement lawsuits as a patent troll but a real patent troll owns patents but makes nothing - their line of business is to buy patents and sue companies. TiVo actually produces something. They have products and offer something to customers. They are simply enforcing their patents. You are welcome to question the validity of their patents; you are welcome to question the wisdom in starting patent wars with other major companies but, let's keep our discussion real - they are not patent trolls.
Members of parliament need to be reminded that they work for us, not Big Media Corp. They need to be reminded that their job security depends heavily on our support, not the support of a corporate lobby group - especially a FOREIGN lobby group. Members of parliament need to become aware that serving the interests of the people whom they represent is their number one priority and serving the interests of lobby groups can come somewhere much further down on that list. They need to be reminded in the simplest and best way possible - they need to be informed that, if they fail to represent the best interests of the people, the people will replace them with someone who understands their role better. They need to be reminded that Big Media Corp might be represented by a large and powerful lobby group but "the population at large" is a much large, much more powerful lobby group and we, as the population at large", are willing to flex our muscles if we aren't being represented properly.
Write to your member of parliament. Vote smart.
Ask for the "reimbursement" to be made in the form of a bonus so it's clear who owns the laptop - what you do with your bonus is your business. Yes, you'll have to pay taxes on it (I assume your tax laws count a bonus as income) but that's cheaper than the full price of the laptop and now it's yours, without question.
So long as there's 1) no contract to spell things out clearly and 2) the computer is "theirs", there will always be the risk of someone claiming the data on it is owned by them, not you. You may have an amazing relationship with your current boss but that situation may change (new boss, turn-for-the-worse in your relationship, whatever). If there's a contract in place, fine, but I suspect you're hesitant to ask that a contract be drawn up for just this situation.
Thus, if the company is willing to fork over the money, have them fork it over in a way that does not link it to the computer.
Or, of course, pay for it yourself. You obviously thought it was worth it given that you already bought it. Yes, an extra grand in your pocket is nice but you already decided you were willing to part with the money so if ownership of the data is important then you're not really out anything - it was an expense you were willing to pay.
Not really - more a (really) low opinion of creationism.
It's not a philosophy. It's fiction. It's a _STORY_, not a (to quote) "study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument."
Creationism is so far from a philosophy...
It's a sad statement on our outlook on life that making more money is more important to us than our long-term survival and well-being. There is no rational justification for ignoring the facts. Yes, some of the specific details may still be debated but the overall reality simply cannot be disputed by anyone with a hint of intelligence. Thus, the only reason I can imagine someone arguing against the facts that are before us is greed - they know that making some changes may (*MAY*) be more expensive (in the short term) and thus they want to fight against it in the hopes of making more money.
I don't think we deserve to be the dominant species on the planet any more... sigh...
Darl. Darl McBride. Not Dan.
Still a liar though.
Oh gawd, no. Please. No. Make it stop. No, really. Make this damn circus stop. How have they manage to continue this charade for this long and why are people enabling them to continue? Gawd almighty, make it stop. Please. I beg of you...
Then file charges for stalking which, to my knowledge, is illegal in most, if not all places in the US. During the course of investigating the stalking issue, if it comes to light that the stalker _also_ posted that material, _THEN_ add additional charges for slander (or libel - I forget which it was and always manage to pick the wrong one...). If she has a stalker then she can legitimately take action against the person now, without the need for finding other reasons.
Sorry - but I believe she thought it was her ex-boyfriend and she was out to fuck him over in a fit of petty, vindictive rage. When it turned out to not be her ex, she moved on. I could well be wrong, but that's certainly how it appears to me.
What does the person being close to her have to do with whether or not she'd press charges? If it's something worthy of putting before the courts, it shouldn't matter if the person is well-known to her or not. The only justification for pressing charges _only_ if the person is close to her is a personal vendetta "fuck you" played out through the court system. If she's unwilling to press charges against a stranger, she should be similarly unwilling to press charges against someone she knows. Sorry - it's abuse of the system, in my mind. It's using the legal system to play out something that most normal human beings handle on their own, like adults.
People should be charged when they intentionally and knowingly abuse the system (from filing bogus charges to initiating bogus lawsuits). Yes, I know, sometimes it's hard to tell when it's bogus and when it's just a "change of heart" but, often, an intelligent person can tell the difference. These sorts of abuses to the legal system harm its integrity and waste valuable resources that could be better spent dealing with, you know, real criminals and real societal problems. Were there actual consequences to abusing the system, perhaps people would be less inclined to play these sorts of games.
But how does the cost compare?
"There's a sucker born every minute."
Sorry, but anyone who pays over $15k to "cure" themselves of addiction to the internet is an idiot. I can cure it for you faster, easier, and cheaper - in fact, you'll MAKE money.
Cancel.
Your.
Internet.
There. I saved you over $15k.
Sorry for the lack of sympathy but there are people out there with real addictions who need help. "Internet addiction" is a complete joke.
And, for anyone who is about to point out people who have an obsessive need to be online, don't confuse OCD behaviour with addiction. The two are different. One may lead to the other but they are not the same. People aren't addicted to the internet. Sorry.
Once ISPs start regulating what they will and will not transport over their cables, they open themselves up to all kinds of lawsuits. You're willing to block piratebay.com but you didn't prevent that creep from downloading child porn? You didn't prevent that hacker from breaking into his school's records? You didn't block all kinds of other activities that are illegal?
I hate the concept of "slippery slope" but this really is exactly that. Either ISPs will start blocking anything and everything they are told is "wrong" and become de facto thought police or they'll become vulnerable to all kinds of lawsuits for failing to block "this" content given that they're willing to block "that" content.
The smart thing for them to do is just be dumb pipes. Provide access to the internet and let the people decide how to use it. If they use it illegally, let the police sort it out. Unfortunately, the various lobby groups (MIAA, RIAA, and their ilk) are probably offering up sweet deals that are financially appealing. Now. Over time, however, it will all come back to bite them in the ass. By then, however, the people who made these decisions will be rich and have moved on to other endeavours and won't care that they've ruined these companies and destroyed the integrity of the internet...
(Of course, the big joke of all this is that the internet was designed to route around problems such as this. The entire point of it was to provide a communication tool that could perform even when major disruptions occur. Not to mention, as is proven every single day, there are more people trying to break through the controls than there are trying to create them. More > fewer, always. These restrictions will only ever amount to temporary solutions, at best. It's a game of cat and mouse that they simply cannot win, ever, regardless of how hard they try.)
It's a lot more complicated than it at first looks.
Well, that's not good because it sounds pretty damn complicated as it is. That said, I'm not a chemist, but still - it sure as hell doesn't sound simple...
While it's possible the tech just snapped and went apeshit on the guy (after all, there are violent headcases out there...), why do I get the feeling that there's a whole lot more to the story than we're getting from the victim?...
So the reports that the iPhone was selling terribly.. Yeah, that was true.
Actually, no, it wasn't. The first post in this thread clearly shows that myth has been debunked. By several sources.
To me, the ideal approach to class balance is rock, paper, scissors. Using WoW as a frame for my post (since most people will be familiar with it), I liked the days when rogues were cloth killers but hunters were rogue killers but most mages were able to dismantle hunters. It was a perfect rock - paper - scissors balance. Sure, all the mages felt that rogues were over powered and rogues constantly complained that they couldn't get away from hunters and hunters bitched and moaned that mages 'sploited but, in the larger sense of the game, things were balanced. One-on-one, there were fights that you relished and fights that you had to run from and hope one of your teammates could pick up. It created an over-all balance.
The benefit to this approach is designers can overlook one class beating the crap out of another the majority of the time so long as the first class gets its ass handed to them by a third, and so on. It allows the game designers to not struggle with ensuring that every class is balanced against every other class which is an impossible, moving target. It simply cannot be done and any attempt to do so will only end in gamers complaining. If WoW (for instance) had come out and said "we balance PvP around rock - paper - scissors and hunters are the rock to your scissors, dear rogues - deal with it" I think the game would be in a better place.
Unfortunately, it is a very rare approach to class balance in an MMO because all those rogues are going to spend all their time on the forums complaining about hunters and demanding nerfs while the mages will complain about the rogues and the hunters will complain about the mages and nobody will realize the instances where they shine and instead focus only on the situations where they get their asses handed to them. Thus, game designers attempt to appease people and balance everyone against everyone else... Unfortunately...