He gave Bush a five-page, handwritten letter in which he stated, 'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.
Glad to see him go. He is probably one of the most dangerous people to American civil liberties. Lets not forget this is the guy who takes Americans and holds them without legal help. And lets not forget this is the guy who lost his senate seat to a dead man. If Missourians elected a dead man over him, what does that say about the president appointing him? Gesh... dumb republicans.
Yeah, or the ones who tell you they don't have the rebates in the store and that you have to go to a website to print them out. And then you can't get in the website. Or the ones that never respond to rebates mailed in.
Why can't a store just sell an item at a price, without the rebates? What is next, the Big Mac for $5 with a $3 mail-in rebate???
I hate Best Buy. I have said this thousands of times. They don't care about the customer.
I went there when windows 2000 was new. There was software I wanted to buy, but on the back it said "windows 98". Since windows 2000 was new, I asked a guy if it would work. "sure, windows 2000 and 98 are compatible, it will work" said the sales associate. Well, I didn't think it would because I knew 2000 was based on NT and not 98, but I made the purchase based on what the sales associate said. When I tried to install the software, it did not work. I went to return it, and Best Buy would not take it back, and went as far as making innuendos that I was some software pirate. Well, Fuck you Bad Buy.
Then there is my update. I tell everyone about how Barf Buy sucks, but sometimes people have to figure it out. A friend went to buy a camcorder, and was looking for one that could transfer movies to his computer, which only had USB. He told this to the sales associate, who sold him a camcorder with firewire. When my friend went to return it, they charged him a 15% restocking fee.
Bitch Buy is horrible. They just want your money. They don't want to provide you with a product. They are modern day crooks.
And oh, from the article:
Store clerks receive hours of training in identifying desirable customers
I guess that means if you are black, stay out of best buy.
And before anyone yells troll, they screwed me out of my money. They are the ones who started the whole mail in rebates, which sometimes don't pay out, and they treat people like crap.
Please provide a link to the details of the ACLU lawsuit you are talking about.
I will do more than that. Since many are saying it is BS that government can search without a warrent, here is something from http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID =12126&c=207
without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records... and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done.
I have seen law experts give the example that the FBI can go to your bank, demand to see all information about you, then order the bank to never reveal the government was there.
from http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/15/ramasastry.patri ot.act/
A national security letter is a piece of paper signed by an FBI agent, compelling disclosure of documents -- such as credit reports, bank records, and telephone/Internet billing and transaction records. Unlike in the case of a warrant, no court reviews or approves security letters; an agent issues them directly.
No individualized suspicion of the person whose records are being sought is required. No foreign government or agent needs to be involved. The FBI does not have to show a judge a compelling need for the records. Nor is there any way set forth by which the recipient could fight the letter. Indeed, to the contrary, receiving a security letter, by law, must be kept secret.
Here is another, from the New York Times, talking about how the FBI is now stopping congress from talking. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/politics/20class ify.html
People are puzzled and, frankly, worried, because the effect here is to quash Congressional oversight. We don't even know what we can't talk about.
Last time I checked, Google was a private company. It's very easy to fling accusations of censorship in a free society, but don't you think you need something more than "a private company wouldn't provide me the information"?
You are missing something. The patriot act gives government all sorts of powers, some of which are illegal for us to know. Think about it, the ACLU sued government to see the whole patriot act, and they were denied. Government can now search your house, without a search warrent, and never tell you. Government can see all your records, bank accounts, library info and never tell you they did it. Before, government needed a warrent and the person knew what government recieved access too. Now there is no informing people they were the subject of an investigation. For all we know, one phone call from Tom Ridge to Google and the information is gone.
Who knows what government already knows that the public, and even scientists in universities, do not know. For all we know, there was a UFO that crashed and the government has discovered alien technologies. There seems to have been an exponential growth in technology. Where did it all come from?
Perhaps you should learn to embrace the wants and needs of the consumers and be less worried about pissing everyone off.
Funny you mention this, because I just finished reading Peter Lynch's "Beating The Street". His #1 criteria for picking stocks to buy???--- That the company gives the consumers something they want. That way there will be a long prosperous history of sales. Otherwise the company will dwindle and die. I think if the MPAA goes the way of fighting consumers, alternative sources of entertainment will be found.
There's no question the RIAA reinforced that property rights needed to be protected. They did a great job in getting the word out that stealing copyrighted music was illegal. In the short term, it caused them some problems, but long term they were helped greatly by the campaign.
LOL, they still don't get it, do they? Sharing is not illegal. Selling is illegal. If I make a copy and give it to a friend, that will never be illegal. If I sell it, then that is illegal. Plus, ever since the RIAA started their hell, I have not purchased one CD. I refuse to support people who use KGB and Gastapo tactics.
BTW, are these the same people who are forcing 30 minutes of commercials before movies?
Greed works, Greed is right. HA!
Man, this cynicism sucks. It is taking so much energy.
And I can't help but notice the word "proprietary". That reminds me of my IBM ps/2 30sx, which had microchanel.
I think a move from DVD would require more than just better quality and low price. Going from VHS to DVD was not just about quality. It was about convenience and features. A randonmly seekable disc with extra features that you don't have to rewind and doesn't lose quality over time? Sign me up. What could a new video format offer that increases features and convenience over DVD? Doesn't copy protection actually take away from convenience and features?
For me I would not have paid over $200 for a DVD player. When they first came out and even the most basic players cost over $400, I did not buy. When it finally hit my price point, I got one for the better picture quality. Remember, back then you could get a 4 head VHS on sale for $39 bucks. It is hard to justify spending 5 times as much for pretty much the same device, something that plays movies. In one way, VHS had a feature that DVD players still do not have, the ability to record.
I would not change from a DVD player with my home theater unless I got a huge increase in picture quality. From VHS to DVD was an increase from 200 lines of resolution to 500. And to top it off, I own many, many DVD's, so I would not be willing to start over again. I think DVD is the format that is here to stay for at least the next 10 years.
But I agree with your point, copy protection is something I don't want. Just like being forced to sit through advertising before a movie. It all takes away from choice. I would preffer something that I can use my way. Companies are getting rediculous with some of the stuff they force on customers. In the worst case scenereo, I would be 100% happy with the combo of my VHS recorder for tv and my dvd player for movies. I am not in any rush to buy the "next greatest thing". And any product with copy protection or DRM or anything that limits my choice I will not buy. I will not even consider it.
if only people could protect their private data from corporate databases, like banks selling customer information to marketing firms or third parties. too bad nobody wants to protect people the way the movie industry wants to protect their content.:(
Now, let's think about this for a second. Even though DirecTV has about millions units in circulation now, the actual decryption part of the operation is done in the form of a single smart card that is very easy to swap out. Therefore, DirecTV doesn't have to make everybody get new boxes to apply this tech, they just have to send out new cards.
I thought it required a special processor chip, so they would have to replace the boxes, not just the card.
Plus, I would not use direct tv if they tried to force that on me. I would go elsewhere, maybe Dish TV.
BTW, anyone know what ever happened to the popularity of those HUGE sattelite dishes people used to have in their back yards in the 80's and early 90's? Every neighborhood had one guy with it, who would get 300 stations from every single country in the world. Now I don't see them. Do they still work?
The companies hope enough SVP-enabled video playback devices and TV set-top boxes will hit the market in coming years so as to allow consumers to transport the encrypted content to specially equipped SVP devices for playback.
i won't buy anything like that. i doubt you will see anything new with drm for tv outside of the next 10 years. nothing is going to replace the dvd players. it would take some device that can play with even better resolution like the dvd did with repsect to vhs. the only reason people purchased dvd players is because they are very cheap, and the resolution is considerably better than vhs. for a new device to take off, they will have to make it cheap and so much better. i doubt that anything which is superior to dvd will come out at a cheap enough price that people will buy it in large enough quantities to make a differance. plus, if there is any company that could dominate such a protocol, it would be microsoft. unless they get involved, any other company will not be able to get widespread enough approval from the industry.
Thats why you should buy hollowpoint ammo for a handgun -- much less likely to travel through things such as walls and people.
they are the bullets that break into fragments. you don't have to hit someone in a major organ to kill them, the spinning action of the disintigrated bullet will cut enough minor viens and arteries while spinning through the body that no doctor can stop the bleeding in time to save the person. which vien or artery of the 100's cut do you try and stich first?
i should not say this because some people might think i am sadistic. but i like watching those er or resident programs on tlc, and predicting who will live and who will die. it is like i am god. and it is a great drinking game. try it with your buds. (hint for newbies, almost any hemmoridge in the head will result in death. i saw one episode where a guy fell off a ladder, and had a hemmoridge in his head. the doctors cut a small opening to releave the pressure, but the brains oozed right out. scene ended with a doctor saying "hope we don't get sued for that", and the other doctor responding "that sure didn't turn out like we expected").
steel tipped bullets are also illegal in my state. they call them cop killers because they can penetrate the bullet proof vest.
but i don't think a rifle cut down, which takes nice long bullets with a narrow circumference are illegal. they can penetrate anything, including vests or steel car doors. i know one guy who was in the army (or at least he purports to have been) who has a m-16 in his closet. every now and then, he hugs his gun and proclaims "they'll never take her away from me". too much heston me thinkith. for all i know, the m-16 could be a fake. but the loaded.45 under his pillow is not. why he keeps it loaded i will never understand. one night while sleeping he is going to blow his own brains out. one homosexual laddened fairy land fantasy will end with one hell of a facial.
i think they should let anyone have anything they want, as long as they keep it on their own property. who cares if the guy down the street has a uzi as long as he never takes it outside the house. his possessions do not effect me at all. now if he was taking it to the supermarket i think i would care.
i personally don't want a gun. if i am mad enough to kill someone, i want to beat the crap out of them with my own hands- ray lewis "bitch slap" style. and if anyone breaks into my house, they better be prepared for the madhouse they selected. i am not beneth sending my over-amourous dogs after the motherfuckers while i prepare the eels. and a little homemade habanero laxitives while wraping the burglar in plastic is a family favorite for the unwanted guest. needless to say, the motherfucker who tries and breaks into my house is going to suffer.
Like you, I also bought a 2MP camera about 18 months ago.... easy to use and great colors
My 2mp camera was good. Any pics I took for the web were great, and HUGE. I had to open up photoshop and crop the image size down when posting, because the picture was wider than the width of my monitor (1024*768). I was happy with my fuji 2mp camera. But then I had a cousin come and visit from Europe, and while shopping she wanted to purchase some disposable camera's. I told her I had a 2mp camera, and she said that did not sound like a high resolution. I talked with the guy working in the store, and he said the disposable camera's were of the same image quality as a 3mp digi camera. So far I have not printed out pictures, just kept them on the PC. But I do know that eventually I will want to start printing pictures, and I don't want grainy pictures.
For a casual camera I just bought a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ3 (3MP) for my wife's birthday. Good enough for 8x10 prints at least. 12x optical zoom, image stabilization (it works) all in a compact package. Very nice camera. Pretty much any 3-4MP camera will make good 8x10 prints these days.
I checked out this camera at amazon, and it looks like what I want. If I could get this camera as a 4mp, it would be perfect. Right now if I printed pics, I think I would want 5 by 7 pictures. But in the future, I would want to print pictures paper sized.
In case you're wondering how I'm estimating the print sizes, the rule of thumb (I've read) is that an image only needs to be printed at 150dpi to give near-photographic resolution (at least to the human eye) and anything more than 300dpi is just more information than necessary. So take the largest print size you'd like to be able to make from your images (say 13x19) and multiply each side by 150, then multiply the two resulting numbers and the end result will be the MINIMUM megapixels you need to print with decent quality. Do that again with 300 and you'll get a much larger number that will be the number of megapixels you'll want in order to get the best possible quality at that print size.
This is the info I needed most. Thank you. I have heard many rules of thumb, that 2mp makes good 4 by 6 pics, that 3mp make good 5 by 7, and so on. But I never thought about how many pixels it takes to make a photo of x inches. Are you sure that 150 dpi is good enough for a crystal clear picture? I remember back in the early 90's when people stared measuring laser printers, that less than 300 dpi would leave letters with unsmooth corners.
i wonder why digital camera's don't come with internal hard drives, and better battery packs. size could be an issue, but if they can make 512 meg usb keychain drives (imagine it without the plastic casing and it is even smaller), i am sure they can put a gigabyte on a camera and still leave a slot for a memory card. also, why not have better batteries? if my laptop can get 4 hours, with a 14.1 screen, then on scale a camera should be able to do better with a much smaller battery. even if they expand the battery pack on camera's by 50%, that would be that many more pictures i could take. and one last thing, add on a better optical zoom, and get rid of the digital zoom.
since we are talking cameras, i might as well ask. i have a 2mp camera which takes good pictures, but i am thinking about getting a 3 or 4mp as prices have fallen (paid over $250 for my 2mp 18 months ago). what digi camera's do people have, and how do they like them? my 2mp is fuji, and i have been happy with them. the 2mp takes nice pictures, but a guy at the photohut told me that for anything larger than 4x6, i should get a better camera.
Have you ever taught? Some students walk into a classroom with absolutely no motivation to learn. Asking a teacher to be able to motivate each and every student is unrealistic.
I dunno why everwhere in american society, when someone pays for a service they can expect to have that service performed, except with teachers. Teachers can intellectualize why they fail at getting the job done. Teachers in bad neighborhoods blame the lack of funding, teachers in rich neighborhoods blame unmotivated students because they have everything handed to them. Everyone has an excuse. But it all boils down to someone paying for a service. For example, if I pay to learn how to become A+ certified in computers, I expect someone who will teach me. The example you give is like someone paying you to upgrade their computer with the newest $300 agp video card, you keeping the money and saying "well, you only have pci, tough luck idiot".
Everyone can be motivated. Everyone. Just like different people learn in different ways, some learn by watching, others learn by listening, others learn by visualizing things in their mind. So why don't teachers cover material in such a way that every learning method is covered? I can't tell you how many teachers I have had who did nothing more than re-read the book back to us during class.
There is a reason people pay for taking classes. They must want to learn. Otherwise they would not pay thier hard earned dollars.
I won't pass off a student who doesn't to the next instuctor or to an unsuspecting employer.
This is the kind of power teachers have. They decide who gets hired and gets the good jobs. I know this is not a part of the discussion, but this is why legacy admissions are evil too.
Don't lay the blame for every unmotivated student on the instructors.
I still think there is more to the art of teaching than being expert in some field. Teachers should have a personality that attracts people and makes them interested in what they are saying. I thought teachers had classes which gave them the skills they need to reach and motivate all the students.
If teachers started viewing thier students as customers instead of students, then I think the education system would be better. Teachers have become like a janitor with a city job. They know they can't get fired. They can miss garbage cans and knock others over, but their job is secure. All they have to do is show up. And it is sad that some teachers do no more than show up.
Oh, about your doctor example. I have a family doctor that I have used for a long time. Everytime I go there I get weighed. For the past couple years I have gained weight. Last time my doctor made notice of it and told me what to start eating and to walk more. Here is the kicker though, my doctor called me two weeks later to see how my new exersize program was going, on her dime. So some do care. Not all doctors have a 10 minute appointments to cram as many people through their practice in a day. Some try and take pride in their job.
One last thing. I hope tenure is eliminated. That is where the problem is. Most great teachers are new ones, who love their discipline and can't wait to tell everyone about what they studied and learned and are expert in. Ask one of those teachers a question and their eyes light up. They invested their lives in it and love it. Now ask a teacher with tenure who will get paid regardless of how well he teaches, and chances are you will get a canned response. At least that has been my experiance. If teachers knew how well they did with *this* class, and every class was *this* class, then they would be more motivated to reach their students.
getting a small usb keychain like device with loads of space will cost you an arm and a leg, and that is for a 512 meg one. then there is the fixed external usb hard drive. i found one at microcenter for $105 after a $15 rebate, it was an 80 gig model (about the price of the usb keychain 512 meg). another option is you could get an external hard drive case. these cases are different than an external hard drive, as you can put any hard drive in the case, any size. you can interchange hard drives. then if you want smaller, you could get a hard drive case built for laptop hardrives. the drives might cost you more than a standard desktop hard drive, but if space is an issue it might be worth it. http://microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtm l?product_id=0145187
oh, i know one guy who got a cheap, cheap, cheap pentium 166 laptop and added a large hard drive. he uses it as a data storage and transfer system. the laptop is an ibm 560e, and he has a wireless pcmcia card. at home, work and school they all have wireless networks. so he can transfer data back and forth easily. and the 560 weighs less than 5 pounds (it is tiny). much thiner than a hard drive case, and it looks cool. plus, you can use it anywhere. probably no more expensive than the 512 meg usb keychain.
In another case, I was told to let a person retest because she didn't like her grade. Never mind that she just didn't study. She wanted an A, and she was determined to keep testing until she got it. My immediate supervisor accused me of not being a good teacher because I didn't want her to "succeed." Yes, I guess success means getting the grade you want, whether you've done the work to deserve it or not. That time, I turned in my resignation.
You are wrong about this. The student is paying lots of good money for a service. The teachers #1 reason for being there is to provide that service. If a student gets a 65% the first time they test, it is the teacher who should get the "D" grade. That shows the teacher did not live up to their end of the bargin. What is the difference between a teacher who inspires students and one that dulls them to death? It should not take a genius to realize teaching is a process where the facilitator of learning, -the teacher-, has to prepare the students to learn. Just like a master chef will prepare a restaurateur to eat, by creating a proper environment, the lighting, the table cloth, the smells, the stimulation of the senses. The customer is at the table with a watering mouth, and can't wait to dig in. A bad teacher is less like the chef and more like the person working the french fryers at McDonalds, who hands you a half filled container with wilted cold fries, and then blames you that your brain could not radiate enough heat to warm them back up. And then you get the worst kind of teacher. One who wants to get back at his/her students because he/she did not have a good life. They are the ones who wish to hand out the same sadistic tests where an 11% correct sets the curve (I have found these kinds of sadists tend to flock to the university physics and chemistry departments, kinda like how foriegn students all live in the international dorm and can say "i'm a virgin" in 52 different languages). Those are the sadists who set a math question value at one point, then take off half a point for not showing enough work, another half a point for a missed decimal point in the forementioned work (not the anwser), and another half a point for using (interchangable) pen/pencil when you should have used the other. That leaves a correct math anwser with a -.5 points out of 1 point.
What should a teacher be? If it was just passing facts, then a book should do the trick just as good as a teacher. But clearly there is something more that a teacher does. If it was just anwsering questions about the book, then there could be chat rooms or on-line forums. But even that is not the same as having a skilled teacher. What the best teachers do is excite and motivate. Just like an NFL or NBA coach does.
As for those on-line papers students can buy, I don't see the harm in them. Chances are the student will want to read the paper before turning it in to make sure there is not a big "Fuck You" mixed in the middle of it, so they are learning something. If a class makes for students who are willing to pay $10 bucks for a paper rather than writing it themselves, that shows the teacher is not fit to teach. Come to think of it, the teacher did motivate the students to do something, to pay money to have someone else go through the teachers discipline rather than seing that discipline as something worth examining.:P
Come to think of it, this discussion reminds me of something that happened to me. I was taking a freshman english class with about 35 students. From looking in the regsitration guide, I could see my teacher was teaching 4 sections. Doing that math, I came to the conclusion that he must have around 140 students. Anyways, back to the point of my story. We had 8 papers due throught the class, each one about 2 pages with the last one up to 8 pages. I noticed that after the first papers were graded, everyone kept getting back papers with simular grades to their first, but with less red markings (even though some people put in great effort to
Ten years ago, we'd have all shit ourselves to get streaming video from overseas or the ability to send it overseas. Now, we have so much corporate nonsense in the pipes that almost all meaningful content is restricted by this kind of crap.
I remember when the net first went up and there was so much quality information. There still is. Problem is now if you try and do a search on any search engine with any word that could be a commercial term, it comes back with page after page of stores and re-directs. I try and limit searches to "site:edu" to try and eliminate that kind of crap, and hope someone with a university account has what i am looking for (which is often the case). I worry the internet will become so flooded with useless "middlemen" offering re-directs to stores and bullcrap, that it will become too much work trying to find usefull information. For example, I was trying to find a website that listed the reputation of used computer/parts stores in a certain area. I got everyone and their pet monkey trying to redirect me to a sales website outside my area. It is as bad as spam, and might be the next battleground. The search engines will have to become more intelligent and eliminate these worthless hits.
I remember reading before the internet that France had some internet for their country. It was much like our gopher system in the early days of the internet. But everyone was identifiable, and they could remove useless content. I think I remember reading it is still popular and is in use. I wish I could remember the name of it.
To be able to watch the Games online, you need to live in the UK and have a broadband connection at home.
What is to stop someone from using a proxy from the UK? If porn can't stop proxies, what makes BBC think they can? LOL.
With BBC Sport providing more than 1,200 hours of coverage on the web, you can make sure you do not miss out on your favourite events from the world's biggest sporting extravaganza.
I am just tossing out this thought. Most countries sign a "cease hostilities" agreement paper for the duration of the olympics. How about if corporations also validated the purity of what the olypics are and not limit coverage by advertising or broadcasting rights. 1200 hours is alot. If NBC thinks basketball will have a large viewing audiance, then black that out. But why black out everything from the internet?
I'm guessing that you are a bitter Republican who most likely does not like this software because the liberals are using it?
I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. I was critisizing how it is so expensive to run for office. If you look at history, it is the republicans who have been breaking records with the amount of money they raise. And it is the democrats that go into neighborhoods meeting people. How many poorer neighborhoods did Bush go into? Yet I remember Clinton going into ghettos shaking anyones hand who wanted to, and kissing little black babies. I am pretty sure Bush spent more time at $500 a plate fund raising dinners. To be fair, the democrats did it too. But wouldn't it be better if they spent that time with us, rather than giving a canned speech to their supporters?
There is also the question of escalation and responding. If one side starts raising the amount of money they spend, the other side has to try and compete or they will lose. Same thing with tools. One side starts hiring experts to determine what makes the voters tick, and then customizes a campaign to tell the voters what they want to hear, not the real ideas the candidate has. What will the other side do? They will follow those methods or fear losing. And even if one side does something new, and it works, it will be repeated in following elections.
Technology is good because it increases Democracy
What makes you say this? Why is technology good for democoracy? Just because technology is usefull for some things, does it mean it is usefull for all? The problem with technology and politics is it is more easily maipulated than if the candidate was on your block, in front of you, talking with you. You can ask the candidate questions, view their body language. With technology they will sell you a politician the way McDonalds sells hamburgers. They will put up only what they want. The other side will try to smear them. And what are you left with? Do you really know the person?
Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama could run, but they have no chance of winning. It's about winning isnt it?
And while the ultimate goal is to win, sometimes it is about a messege. How popular a topic was the budget deficit before Ross Perot and his commercials. Remember the millions of dollars he spent so his same half hour commercial would be on all the major stations so he could show off his charts? Well, it had an effect. He did not win, but it forced politicians to do something. Because of him, Clinton balanced the budget. And while the republicans out there might say it was congress, the leader of our nation is always the president. He makes all the final decisions, which way to lead our country and what bills to sign into law.
"Our big concern was what's missing, what technological piece is missing to organize an effective campaign. Resoundingly, peop le across the country told us there was a special need for software to enable neighbor-to-neighbor activity--and that, ideally, it should be freely distributed, easy to use, and free."
I disagree with this. I think we don't need more between the voter and the politicians, we need less. What I want to see is the politicians go door to door, meet people, talk to them. The more politics becomes some equation with all the consultants and marketing experts, the less voting will mean. Politicians will secure their base, do research to find out how to make the middle swing their way, and then give speeches to satisfy those people. More technology will just reinforce this new paradigm. And once this happens, the real power will be with lobbyists, the ones who can fund a candidate to have the best consultants and marketing.
I would love to see a genuinely inspired person run a campagin going door to door, speaking passionatly about what they believe in (and not something scripted by consultants). I would like to see this guy/gal reject lobbyists and do it the old fashioned, grass roots way. Can it be done today, and still win? I think so. But to the uninspired who want the title/power/prestige of public office (and not the public service), they will take the easy way and do a media blitz.
I will finish with one last question. Should it really cost 10 million dollars to run a "sucessful" senate campaign? Should it cost 200 million dollars to run for president? And how does that limit who can run? Only the wealthy? Only the well connected? What about Joe Sixpack who has some good ideas about making life better for the avarage american? Can he possibly run and compete?
he can now look forward to 18-36 months behind bars and -- shades of Kevin Mitnick's phantom damages
those are not phantom damages to the people who suffered because of it. if someone had to spend time fixing a system or had lowered security because of it, then the damages are real. and if he takes that approach, that there are no "phantom damages" and that it's not his fault, then he will get the book thrown at him because he has no remorse.
First, I would be happy if I could get 14.4k/sec with my wireless phone, but they charge a monthly fee just to use their "special services", a data charge per kilobyte, and the normal air minutes. I would use my cell phone to check emails, and that would be about it. Maybe to read the newspaper. So for me, I don't need anything faster. But I don't want to pay three times for the same service. I can only imagine how much any faster internet service would cost. I fear the day of the $100 a month cell phone bill is near.
There is a second concern that I can think of. If a phone is able to get broadband speed and has a videocamera attached, it could cause privacy problems. Do we really want a new kind of voyer with these devices??
What else could broadband on a phone be used for?? I doubt anyone will use their cell phone as a computer. A phone is first a phone and secondly all other things. Plus, cell phones have such limited battery use times, that I doubt anyone would really use those other features for more than a very limited time.
Slashdot Mirror
And Bush had to have someone read it to him.
Glad to see him go. He is probably one of the most dangerous people to American civil liberties. Lets not forget this is the guy who takes Americans and holds them without legal help. And lets not forget this is the guy who lost his senate seat to a dead man. If Missourians elected a dead man over him, what does that say about the president appointing him? Gesh... dumb republicans.
Why can't a store just sell an item at a price, without the rebates? What is next, the Big Mac for $5 with a $3 mail-in rebate???
I went there when windows 2000 was new. There was software I wanted to buy, but on the back it said "windows 98". Since windows 2000 was new, I asked a guy if it would work. "sure, windows 2000 and 98 are compatible, it will work" said the sales associate. Well, I didn't think it would because I knew 2000 was based on NT and not 98, but I made the purchase based on what the sales associate said. When I tried to install the software, it did not work. I went to return it, and Best Buy would not take it back, and went as far as making innuendos that I was some software pirate. Well, Fuck you Bad Buy.
Then there is my update. I tell everyone about how Barf Buy sucks, but sometimes people have to figure it out. A friend went to buy a camcorder, and was looking for one that could transfer movies to his computer, which only had USB. He told this to the sales associate, who sold him a camcorder with firewire. When my friend went to return it, they charged him a 15% restocking fee.
Bitch Buy is horrible. They just want your money. They don't want to provide you with a product. They are modern day crooks.
And oh, from the article:
Store clerks receive hours of training in identifying desirable customers
I guess that means if you are black, stay out of best buy.
And before anyone yells troll, they screwed me out of my money. They are the ones who started the whole mail in rebates, which sometimes don't pay out, and they treat people like crap.
I will do more than that. Since many are saying it is BS that government can search without a warrent, here is something from http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID =12126&c=207
without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records... and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done.
I have seen law experts give the example that the FBI can go to your bank, demand to see all information about you, then order the bank to never reveal the government was there.
from http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/15/ramasastry.patri ot.act/
A national security letter is a piece of paper signed by an FBI agent, compelling disclosure of documents -- such as credit reports, bank records, and telephone/Internet billing and transaction records. Unlike in the case of a warrant, no court reviews or approves security letters; an agent issues them directly.
No individualized suspicion of the person whose records are being sought is required. No foreign government or agent needs to be involved. The FBI does not have to show a judge a compelling need for the records. Nor is there any way set forth by which the recipient could fight the letter. Indeed, to the contrary, receiving a security letter, by law, must be kept secret.
Here is another, from the New York Times, talking about how the FBI is now stopping congress from talking. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/politics/20class ify.html
People are puzzled and, frankly, worried, because the effect here is to quash Congressional oversight. We don't even know what we can't talk about.
You are missing something. The patriot act gives government all sorts of powers, some of which are illegal for us to know. Think about it, the ACLU sued government to see the whole patriot act, and they were denied. Government can now search your house, without a search warrent, and never tell you. Government can see all your records, bank accounts, library info and never tell you they did it. Before, government needed a warrent and the person knew what government recieved access too. Now there is no informing people they were the subject of an investigation. For all we know, one phone call from Tom Ridge to Google and the information is gone.
What proof do I have? Just look at Sam Cassel.
Funny you mention this, because I just finished reading Peter Lynch's "Beating The Street". His #1 criteria for picking stocks to buy???--- That the company gives the consumers something they want. That way there will be a long prosperous history of sales. Otherwise the company will dwindle and die. I think if the MPAA goes the way of fighting consumers, alternative sources of entertainment will be found.
LOL, they still don't get it, do they? Sharing is not illegal. Selling is illegal. If I make a copy and give it to a friend, that will never be illegal. If I sell it, then that is illegal. Plus, ever since the RIAA started their hell, I have not purchased one CD. I refuse to support people who use KGB and Gastapo tactics.
BTW, are these the same people who are forcing 30 minutes of commercials before movies?
Greed works, Greed is right. HA!
Man, this cynicism sucks. It is taking so much energy.
And I can't help but notice the word "proprietary". That reminds me of my IBM ps/2 30sx, which had microchanel.
For me I would not have paid over $200 for a DVD player. When they first came out and even the most basic players cost over $400, I did not buy. When it finally hit my price point, I got one for the better picture quality. Remember, back then you could get a 4 head VHS on sale for $39 bucks. It is hard to justify spending 5 times as much for pretty much the same device, something that plays movies. In one way, VHS had a feature that DVD players still do not have, the ability to record.
I would not change from a DVD player with my home theater unless I got a huge increase in picture quality. From VHS to DVD was an increase from 200 lines of resolution to 500. And to top it off, I own many, many DVD's, so I would not be willing to start over again. I think DVD is the format that is here to stay for at least the next 10 years.
But I agree with your point, copy protection is something I don't want. Just like being forced to sit through advertising before a movie. It all takes away from choice. I would preffer something that I can use my way. Companies are getting rediculous with some of the stuff they force on customers. In the worst case scenereo, I would be 100% happy with the combo of my VHS recorder for tv and my dvd player for movies. I am not in any rush to buy the "next greatest thing". And any product with copy protection or DRM or anything that limits my choice I will not buy. I will not even consider it.
if only people could protect their private data from corporate databases, like banks selling customer information to marketing firms or third parties. too bad nobody wants to protect people the way the movie industry wants to protect their content. :(
I thought it required a special processor chip, so they would have to replace the boxes, not just the card.
Plus, I would not use direct tv if they tried to force that on me. I would go elsewhere, maybe Dish TV.
BTW, anyone know what ever happened to the popularity of those HUGE sattelite dishes people used to have in their back yards in the 80's and early 90's? Every neighborhood had one guy with it, who would get 300 stations from every single country in the world. Now I don't see them. Do they still work?
i won't buy anything like that. i doubt you will see anything new with drm for tv outside of the next 10 years. nothing is going to replace the dvd players. it would take some device that can play with even better resolution like the dvd did with repsect to vhs. the only reason people purchased dvd players is because they are very cheap, and the resolution is considerably better than vhs. for a new device to take off, they will have to make it cheap and so much better. i doubt that anything which is superior to dvd will come out at a cheap enough price that people will buy it in large enough quantities to make a differance. plus, if there is any company that could dominate such a protocol, it would be microsoft. unless they get involved, any other company will not be able to get widespread enough approval from the industry.
they are the bullets that break into fragments. you don't have to hit someone in a major organ to kill them, the spinning action of the disintigrated bullet will cut enough minor viens and arteries while spinning through the body that no doctor can stop the bleeding in time to save the person. which vien or artery of the 100's cut do you try and stich first?
i should not say this because some people might think i am sadistic. but i like watching those er or resident programs on tlc, and predicting who will live and who will die. it is like i am god. and it is a great drinking game. try it with your buds. (hint for newbies, almost any hemmoridge in the head will result in death. i saw one episode where a guy fell off a ladder, and had a hemmoridge in his head. the doctors cut a small opening to releave the pressure, but the brains oozed right out. scene ended with a doctor saying "hope we don't get sued for that", and the other doctor responding "that sure didn't turn out like we expected").
steel tipped bullets are also illegal in my state. they call them cop killers because they can penetrate the bullet proof vest.
but i don't think a rifle cut down, which takes nice long bullets with a narrow circumference are illegal. they can penetrate anything, including vests or steel car doors. i know one guy who was in the army (or at least he purports to have been) who has a m-16 in his closet. every now and then, he hugs his gun and proclaims "they'll never take her away from me". too much heston me thinkith. for all i know, the m-16 could be a fake. but the loaded .45 under his pillow is not. why he keeps it loaded i will never understand. one night while sleeping he is going to blow his own brains out. one homosexual laddened fairy land fantasy will end with one hell of a facial.
i think they should let anyone have anything they want, as long as they keep it on their own property. who cares if the guy down the street has a uzi as long as he never takes it outside the house. his possessions do not effect me at all. now if he was taking it to the supermarket i think i would care.
i personally don't want a gun. if i am mad enough to kill someone, i want to beat the crap out of them with my own hands- ray lewis "bitch slap" style. and if anyone breaks into my house, they better be prepared for the madhouse they selected. i am not beneth sending my over-amourous dogs after the motherfuckers while i prepare the eels. and a little homemade habanero laxitives while wraping the burglar in plastic is a family favorite for the unwanted guest. needless to say, the motherfucker who tries and breaks into my house is going to suffer.
My 2mp camera was good. Any pics I took for the web were great, and HUGE. I had to open up photoshop and crop the image size down when posting, because the picture was wider than the width of my monitor (1024*768). I was happy with my fuji 2mp camera. But then I had a cousin come and visit from Europe, and while shopping she wanted to purchase some disposable camera's. I told her I had a 2mp camera, and she said that did not sound like a high resolution. I talked with the guy working in the store, and he said the disposable camera's were of the same image quality as a 3mp digi camera. So far I have not printed out pictures, just kept them on the PC. But I do know that eventually I will want to start printing pictures, and I don't want grainy pictures.
For a casual camera I just bought a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ3 (3MP) for my wife's birthday. Good enough for 8x10 prints at least. 12x optical zoom, image stabilization (it works) all in a compact package. Very nice camera. Pretty much any 3-4MP camera will make good 8x10 prints these days.
I checked out this camera at amazon, and it looks like what I want. If I could get this camera as a 4mp, it would be perfect. Right now if I printed pics, I think I would want 5 by 7 pictures. But in the future, I would want to print pictures paper sized.
In case you're wondering how I'm estimating the print sizes, the rule of thumb (I've read) is that an image only needs to be printed at 150dpi to give near-photographic resolution (at least to the human eye) and anything more than 300dpi is just more information than necessary. So take the largest print size you'd like to be able to make from your images (say 13x19) and multiply each side by 150, then multiply the two resulting numbers and the end result will be the MINIMUM megapixels you need to print with decent quality. Do that again with 300 and you'll get a much larger number that will be the number of megapixels you'll want in order to get the best possible quality at that print size.
This is the info I needed most. Thank you. I have heard many rules of thumb, that 2mp makes good 4 by 6 pics, that 3mp make good 5 by 7, and so on. But I never thought about how many pixels it takes to make a photo of x inches. Are you sure that 150 dpi is good enough for a crystal clear picture? I remember back in the early 90's when people stared measuring laser printers, that less than 300 dpi would leave letters with unsmooth corners.
Once again, thanks for you info. It helps!
since we are talking cameras, i might as well ask. i have a 2mp camera which takes good pictures, but i am thinking about getting a 3 or 4mp as prices have fallen (paid over $250 for my 2mp 18 months ago). what digi camera's do people have, and how do they like them? my 2mp is fuji, and i have been happy with them. the 2mp takes nice pictures, but a guy at the photohut told me that for anything larger than 4x6, i should get a better camera.
I dunno why everwhere in american society, when someone pays for a service they can expect to have that service performed, except with teachers. Teachers can intellectualize why they fail at getting the job done. Teachers in bad neighborhoods blame the lack of funding, teachers in rich neighborhoods blame unmotivated students because they have everything handed to them. Everyone has an excuse. But it all boils down to someone paying for a service. For example, if I pay to learn how to become A+ certified in computers, I expect someone who will teach me. The example you give is like someone paying you to upgrade their computer with the newest $300 agp video card, you keeping the money and saying "well, you only have pci, tough luck idiot".
Everyone can be motivated. Everyone. Just like different people learn in different ways, some learn by watching, others learn by listening, others learn by visualizing things in their mind. So why don't teachers cover material in such a way that every learning method is covered? I can't tell you how many teachers I have had who did nothing more than re-read the book back to us during class.
There is a reason people pay for taking classes. They must want to learn. Otherwise they would not pay thier hard earned dollars.
I won't pass off a student who doesn't to the next instuctor or to an unsuspecting employer.
This is the kind of power teachers have. They decide who gets hired and gets the good jobs. I know this is not a part of the discussion, but this is why legacy admissions are evil too.
Don't lay the blame for every unmotivated student on the instructors.
I still think there is more to the art of teaching than being expert in some field. Teachers should have a personality that attracts people and makes them interested in what they are saying. I thought teachers had classes which gave them the skills they need to reach and motivate all the students.
If teachers started viewing thier students as customers instead of students, then I think the education system would be better. Teachers have become like a janitor with a city job. They know they can't get fired. They can miss garbage cans and knock others over, but their job is secure. All they have to do is show up. And it is sad that some teachers do no more than show up.
Oh, about your doctor example. I have a family doctor that I have used for a long time. Everytime I go there I get weighed. For the past couple years I have gained weight. Last time my doctor made notice of it and told me what to start eating and to walk more. Here is the kicker though, my doctor called me two weeks later to see how my new exersize program was going, on her dime. So some do care. Not all doctors have a 10 minute appointments to cram as many people through their practice in a day. Some try and take pride in their job.
One last thing. I hope tenure is eliminated. That is where the problem is. Most great teachers are new ones, who love their discipline and can't wait to tell everyone about what they studied and learned and are expert in. Ask one of those teachers a question and their eyes light up. They invested their lives in it and love it. Now ask a teacher with tenure who will get paid regardless of how well he teaches, and chances are you will get a canned response. At least that has been my experiance. If teachers knew how well they did with *this* class, and every class was *this* class, then they would be more motivated to reach their students.
oh, i know one guy who got a cheap, cheap, cheap pentium 166 laptop and added a large hard drive. he uses it as a data storage and transfer system. the laptop is an ibm 560e, and he has a wireless pcmcia card. at home, work and school they all have wireless networks. so he can transfer data back and forth easily. and the 560 weighs less than 5 pounds (it is tiny). much thiner than a hard drive case, and it looks cool. plus, you can use it anywhere. probably no more expensive than the 512 meg usb keychain.
You are wrong about this. The student is paying lots of good money for a service. The teachers #1 reason for being there is to provide that service. If a student gets a 65% the first time they test, it is the teacher who should get the "D" grade. That shows the teacher did not live up to their end of the bargin. What is the difference between a teacher who inspires students and one that dulls them to death? It should not take a genius to realize teaching is a process where the facilitator of learning, -the teacher-, has to prepare the students to learn. Just like a master chef will prepare a restaurateur to eat, by creating a proper environment, the lighting, the table cloth, the smells, the stimulation of the senses. The customer is at the table with a watering mouth, and can't wait to dig in. A bad teacher is less like the chef and more like the person working the french fryers at McDonalds, who hands you a half filled container with wilted cold fries, and then blames you that your brain could not radiate enough heat to warm them back up. And then you get the worst kind of teacher. One who wants to get back at his/her students because he/she did not have a good life. They are the ones who wish to hand out the same sadistic tests where an 11% correct sets the curve (I have found these kinds of sadists tend to flock to the university physics and chemistry departments, kinda like how foriegn students all live in the international dorm and can say "i'm a virgin" in 52 different languages). Those are the sadists who set a math question value at one point, then take off half a point for not showing enough work, another half a point for a missed decimal point in the forementioned work (not the anwser), and another half a point for using (interchangable) pen/pencil when you should have used the other. That leaves a correct math anwser with a -.5 points out of 1 point.
What should a teacher be? If it was just passing facts, then a book should do the trick just as good as a teacher. But clearly there is something more that a teacher does. If it was just anwsering questions about the book, then there could be chat rooms or on-line forums. But even that is not the same as having a skilled teacher. What the best teachers do is excite and motivate. Just like an NFL or NBA coach does.
As for those on-line papers students can buy, I don't see the harm in them. Chances are the student will want to read the paper before turning it in to make sure there is not a big "Fuck You" mixed in the middle of it, so they are learning something. If a class makes for students who are willing to pay $10 bucks for a paper rather than writing it themselves, that shows the teacher is not fit to teach. Come to think of it, the teacher did motivate the students to do something, to pay money to have someone else go through the teachers discipline rather than seing that discipline as something worth examining. :P
Come to think of it, this discussion reminds me of something that happened to me. I was taking a freshman english class with about 35 students. From looking in the regsitration guide, I could see my teacher was teaching 4 sections. Doing that math, I came to the conclusion that he must have around 140 students. Anyways, back to the point of my story. We had 8 papers due throught the class, each one about 2 pages with the last one up to 8 pages. I noticed that after the first papers were graded, everyone kept getting back papers with simular grades to their first, but with less red markings (even though some people put in great effort to
I remember when the net first went up and there was so much quality information. There still is. Problem is now if you try and do a search on any search engine with any word that could be a commercial term, it comes back with page after page of stores and re-directs. I try and limit searches to "site:edu" to try and eliminate that kind of crap, and hope someone with a university account has what i am looking for (which is often the case). I worry the internet will become so flooded with useless "middlemen" offering re-directs to stores and bullcrap, that it will become too much work trying to find usefull information. For example, I was trying to find a website that listed the reputation of used computer/parts stores in a certain area. I got everyone and their pet monkey trying to redirect me to a sales website outside my area. It is as bad as spam, and might be the next battleground. The search engines will have to become more intelligent and eliminate these worthless hits.
I remember reading before the internet that France had some internet for their country. It was much like our gopher system in the early days of the internet. But everyone was identifiable, and they could remove useless content. I think I remember reading it is still popular and is in use. I wish I could remember the name of it.
What is to stop someone from using a proxy from the UK? If porn can't stop proxies, what makes BBC think they can? LOL.
With BBC Sport providing more than 1,200 hours of coverage on the web, you can make sure you do not miss out on your favourite events from the world's biggest sporting extravaganza.
I am just tossing out this thought. Most countries sign a "cease hostilities" agreement paper for the duration of the olympics. How about if corporations also validated the purity of what the olypics are and not limit coverage by advertising or broadcasting rights. 1200 hours is alot. If NBC thinks basketball will have a large viewing audiance, then black that out. But why black out everything from the internet?
I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. I was critisizing how it is so expensive to run for office. If you look at history, it is the republicans who have been breaking records with the amount of money they raise. And it is the democrats that go into neighborhoods meeting people. How many poorer neighborhoods did Bush go into? Yet I remember Clinton going into ghettos shaking anyones hand who wanted to, and kissing little black babies. I am pretty sure Bush spent more time at $500 a plate fund raising dinners. To be fair, the democrats did it too. But wouldn't it be better if they spent that time with us, rather than giving a canned speech to their supporters?
There is also the question of escalation and responding. If one side starts raising the amount of money they spend, the other side has to try and compete or they will lose. Same thing with tools. One side starts hiring experts to determine what makes the voters tick, and then customizes a campaign to tell the voters what they want to hear, not the real ideas the candidate has. What will the other side do? They will follow those methods or fear losing. And even if one side does something new, and it works, it will be repeated in following elections.
Technology is good because it increases Democracy
What makes you say this? Why is technology good for democoracy? Just because technology is usefull for some things, does it mean it is usefull for all? The problem with technology and politics is it is more easily maipulated than if the candidate was on your block, in front of you, talking with you. You can ask the candidate questions, view their body language. With technology they will sell you a politician the way McDonalds sells hamburgers. They will put up only what they want. The other side will try to smear them. And what are you left with? Do you really know the person?
Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama could run, but they have no chance of winning. It's about winning isnt it?
And while the ultimate goal is to win, sometimes it is about a messege. How popular a topic was the budget deficit before Ross Perot and his commercials. Remember the millions of dollars he spent so his same half hour commercial would be on all the major stations so he could show off his charts? Well, it had an effect. He did not win, but it forced politicians to do something. Because of him, Clinton balanced the budget. And while the republicans out there might say it was congress, the leader of our nation is always the president. He makes all the final decisions, which way to lead our country and what bills to sign into law.
I disagree with this. I think we don't need more between the voter and the politicians, we need less. What I want to see is the politicians go door to door, meet people, talk to them. The more politics becomes some equation with all the consultants and marketing experts, the less voting will mean. Politicians will secure their base, do research to find out how to make the middle swing their way, and then give speeches to satisfy those people. More technology will just reinforce this new paradigm. And once this happens, the real power will be with lobbyists, the ones who can fund a candidate to have the best consultants and marketing.
I would love to see a genuinely inspired person run a campagin going door to door, speaking passionatly about what they believe in (and not something scripted by consultants). I would like to see this guy/gal reject lobbyists and do it the old fashioned, grass roots way. Can it be done today, and still win? I think so. But to the uninspired who want the title/power/prestige of public office (and not the public service), they will take the easy way and do a media blitz.
I will finish with one last question. Should it really cost 10 million dollars to run a "sucessful" senate campaign? Should it cost 200 million dollars to run for president? And how does that limit who can run? Only the wealthy? Only the well connected? What about Joe Sixpack who has some good ideas about making life better for the avarage american? Can he possibly run and compete?
those are not phantom damages to the people who suffered because of it. if someone had to spend time fixing a system or had lowered security because of it, then the damages are real. and if he takes that approach, that there are no "phantom damages" and that it's not his fault, then he will get the book thrown at him because he has no remorse.
There is a second concern that I can think of. If a phone is able to get broadband speed and has a videocamera attached, it could cause privacy problems. Do we really want a new kind of voyer with these devices??
What else could broadband on a phone be used for?? I doubt anyone will use their cell phone as a computer. A phone is first a phone and secondly all other things. Plus, cell phones have such limited battery use times, that I doubt anyone would really use those other features for more than a very limited time.