Wow, that's an ugly hack. Do people really do this kind of stuff, and consider it normal?
What do you mean "normal"? No one buying on iTunes really needs to do this. It's just that it's possible if you for some reason need the stuff in MP3 format.
I'd rather get in my car, drive to the store, and actually buy the CD than buy it online, burn it, and re-rip it.
I'd rather buy it online, listen to it immediately, copy it to my ipod immediately, send it to my brother's computer immediately, share it to my friends on my LAN immediately -- and that's what I do with iTMS.
wonder what's going on here? It sounds too much like the "spontaneous demonstrations" that have been happening the last several days. Someone is playing a calculated game here, and it's not only unclear what they're up and who's the prime mover; it's not clear which "side" is stirring the pot [1].
I've heard Iran may be playing games here, because of their predicament with the UN and their nuclear developments. Supposedly Denmark will be rotating to take control of whatever UN council Iran will be "brought in front of" soon. I wish I could find the article about this, but I read it a few days ago. Could be coincidence, but seems fishy as these cartoons were originally published many months ago. (Yeah I know about the Danish imams that tried to stoke the fire, but they too were travelling months ago.)
I'm going to have to use someone else or he's going to have to send me the original files as an MP3
This is a cop-out. It's like saying an artist agreed to let you use his music, but he handed you a tape or a record so now you can't use the music. AAC from iTMS is just a format. It can be converted. (Burn to a CD and rip as whatever format you want.)
What is wrong with Bolton? He is qualified for the position. Just because he doesn't have the opinion that the UN is the end-all-be-all (same as many people) doesn't mean he can't work with them.
No to worry. If my trusty new Pioneer AVIC-D1 is any indication, you basically have to sign away the rights to your first born child EVERY TIME YOU START YOUR CAR in order to use the navigation features for a drive. And what if you're driving somewhere and want to map in a pitstop to another location. You have to stop, pull over, put the PARKING BRAKE on, and then you are permitted to use the device. Who cares that you have someone else riding with you that could program the device while you safely drive.
Thank you [lawyers + morons] for making it a total pain in the ass to safely use devices like this.
Would eBay (who owns PayPal) have to allow sellers / buyers to use it? I don't think they would.
This is like asking, "would eBay let people pay each other using cash?" In other words, how the hell would eBay stop people from using "gPay"? The only question is would eBay make it EASY to use gPay, like they do with paypal. Obviously the answer to that is NO.
Although this is correct, I have to agree with the grandparent's intent.
And what was his intent? He stated, "Actually, they are taking care of their end users: The advertisers." To me it was the implication is that Google doesn't care about the users, only the advertisers. Anyone with a brain can see that makes no sense, because if you don't take care of the users, they'll disappear, and with them, the advertisers. Jesus.
We are not their customers, we are the raw matierial for their product, which is advertising. Google Advertising is their product, and advertisers are their customers.
Who cares what we're called and what the advertisers are called? The fact is everyone is benefiting from the relationship. We get free services which are by-and-large agreed to be great. They make money. The advertisers attract customers.
Please enlighten me as to what the problem is with this scenario?
I dunno. In the context of advertising-supported services, I'm having trouble reconciling that statement with the success of commercial television.
Or for that matter, the success of Microsoft software.
You are correct, I should have said, "If Google's products sucked, not enough people would use them for Google to turn a profit on the advertising." I just sort of summarized that.
We who use Google products aren't the end users. We're the product that Google sells to the advertisers. It's the same with any other advertiser or advertising-supported medium.
I don't understand why that's so hard for people to figure out.
Maybe because it's a naive viewpoint that others don't agree with?
People that use Google's products are end-users, by the very definition.
If Google's products sucked, no one would USE them. Clearly they do not suck.
Advertisers pay for your use of the service, since you do not.
Therefore it is an even exchange that benefits everyone:
(a) You get access to a product you enjoy without paying for it. (b) Advertisers get the opportunity to sell you their products. (c) Google makes enough money to pay their expenses and earn a nice profit.
Sorry if there's not enough hyperbole in that description for you.
first, we helped create the situation in 39 with the punative versailles treaty. If the west had not destroyed gernmany's economy hitler probably would not have come to power.
Second regarding Iran. The first big case of blowback. The CIA supported a coup against the first democratically elected government in iran in 1953.
Again, let me re-iterate that I think the US is too involved in everyday proceedings in foreign countries. However, the versailles treaty doesn't mean it's ok for Hitler to create a holocaust, and a coup d'etat in 53 doesn't mean it's OK for Iran to create nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. Just because we helped Kuwait send back an attack from a dictator, or made agreements with the Saudi Arabian government for military base placements doesn't mean its OK to kill 3000 innocent people.
I think their public policy stems from that, our support of the shah, and our unquestioning support of israel. isn't it interesting that israel has nuclear weapons, but isn't brought up to the security council for it?
No, why should it be? Israel's stated policy is not to destroy Iran or Palestine. Israel has been making an effort at peace, which is more than I can say for Palestine or Iran. Israel has had nukes for how long, and how many times have they nuked Palestine or Iran or any other country? Zero times. Iran has UN sanctions against it forbidding it from pursuing nuclear activity for very good reason. In addition, the UN is overwhelmingly pro-Muslim and anti-Israel, just based on its membership alone.
I don't know what did happen, and I don't have any real good theories of my own, but what I do know is that the current popular theory blaming this on some vague organization across the globe stinks like shit.
Let's see. We know who did it, they were al Qaeda members. We know Osama has never denied doing it, even though the blame has been laid at his feet. We know he orchestrated the original attempt to blow up the twin towers. We know al Qaeda like to strike again at targets if it doesn't first succeed. We've caught other al Qaeda members that helped plan it. And no other group fits the puzzle.
I'm sorry if you have some reason to think it "stinks like shit," but Occam's Razor applies here.
Simple, stop poking our nose in other countries business. Terrorism does not happen in a vacuum. It happens because our government is playing empire in someone elses land.
We tried that. 1939. Didn't turn out so well.
And this is coming from me as a libertarian who agrees we should not be so entrenched overseas... but there are places where our nose does belong. Iran is probably trying to create nuclear weapons. Their public policy is that Israel should be blown off the face of the Earth. Is it OK for us to intervene now?
But I think you're implying that it's OK for Osama bin Laden to kill 3000 innocent Americans because the US had bases in Saudi Arabia. Is that what you're saying? Because that was the main reason Osama was supposedly pissed at us. Then Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and we went to war to push him back, and then Osama said he was mad because Iraqi children died then and in the aftermath. Did he blame Saddam? A little, but mostly us.
Or does he just want to spread militant Islam across the globe?
See, it's hard to tell exactly what Osama wants, because he's said all of these things and more, depending on what he thinks will go over best with the current group that would like to appease him. The latest is that they will stop plotting to kill Americans if we pull out of Iraq. Right...
We weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan when 9/11 happened. Nor when they bombed the embassies in Africa. Nor when they originally tried to bomb the twin towers.
There is no rhyme or reason to madmen, so please, spare us the attempt to try and suggest that if we just appease the terrorists, they'll leave us alone. It has never worked.
Re:Do people actually log-in when searching Google
on
Google Toolbar v.4
·
· Score: 1
We are exercising our right to privacy in our own home is what we are doing.
Not that I think THE GOVERNMENT should know what we are browsing, but I'm really curious how you are PRIVATELY BROWSING the internet?
Seriously? Unless you are running all of these servers on your home LAN, or you go through the headaches required to really anonymize your browsing, you are most definitely not surfing privately in your own home.
But seriously, I should point out that 52 pounds over 3 months is equal to 4 pounds a week. That is safe. I've heard of people dropping 50 pounds in a month, which is scary. Christian Bale went down to 121 lb, then all the way back up to 220 lb in a short period of time, to transition from The Machinist to Batman Begins roles:
"Bale normally weighs around 185 and dropped down to 121 for "The Machinist." He then went all the way up to 220 when that finished in order to get ready for "Batman Begins." By the time shooting began, Bale's weight hovered around 190. All of this occurred over a period of five months."
That is also debatable. You could say GW could have an adverse effect on some forms of life, but it could also have a positive effect on other forms of life. How do you measure the two and balance them against each other? Whenever we get involved in anything having to do with the environment, we are having good and bad effects on different things.
China has just recently begun correcting many of their environmental policies. They spent the better part of 3 decades ramping up industry without concern for the environment, but the government is trying to fix the problem. The people are even rioting over the pollution issue now. They are trying, which is more than I can say for us in the U.S.
Do you have any proof at all to back this up?
As for the US not "trying," I see more hybrids on the street every day, and more demand means more will be built. The most popular car, the Toyota Camry, will be available in a hybrid version in 2007. There are luxury hybrids, SUV hybrids, regular sedan hybrids, and small hybrids. That's a great start. Now if we could replace some of these coal burning stations with nuclear energy, that'd be even better. But many environmentalists have a strong opposition to nuclear energy, often irrationally.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that's an ugly hack. Do people really do this kind of stuff, and consider it normal?
What do you mean "normal"? No one buying on iTunes really needs to do this. It's just that it's possible if you for some reason need the stuff in MP3 format.
I'd rather get in my car, drive to the store, and actually buy the CD than buy it online, burn it, and re-rip it.
I'd rather buy it online, listen to it immediately, copy it to my ipod immediately, send it to my brother's computer immediately, share it to my friends on my LAN immediately -- and that's what I do with iTMS.
wonder what's going on here? It sounds too much like the "spontaneous demonstrations" that have been happening the last several days. Someone is playing a calculated game here, and it's not only unclear what they're up and who's the prime mover; it's not clear which "side" is stirring the pot [1].
I've heard Iran may be playing games here, because of their predicament with the UN and their nuclear developments. Supposedly Denmark will be rotating to take control of whatever UN council Iran will be "brought in front of" soon. I wish I could find the article about this, but I read it a few days ago. Could be coincidence, but seems fishy as these cartoons were originally published many months ago. (Yeah I know about the Danish imams that tried to stoke the fire, but they too were travelling months ago.)
I'm going to have to use someone else or he's going to have to send me the original files as an MP3
This is a cop-out. It's like saying an artist agreed to let you use his music, but he handed you a tape or a record so now you can't use the music. AAC from iTMS is just a format. It can be converted. (Burn to a CD and rip as whatever format you want.)
The smallpox vaccine was the first vaccine, and the word "vaccine" itself is derived from - you guessed it - the latin word for cow, which is "vacca".
I didn't guess it, you insensitive clod!
What is wrong with Bolton? He is qualified for the position. Just because he doesn't have the opinion that the UN is the end-all-be-all (same as many people) doesn't mean he can't work with them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton
As someone that is sick of the UN, I think it's a great idea to have a contrarian in there representing us.
No to worry. If my trusty new Pioneer AVIC-D1 is any indication, you basically have to sign away the rights to your first born child EVERY TIME YOU START YOUR CAR in order to use the navigation features for a drive. And what if you're driving somewhere and want to map in a pitstop to another location. You have to stop, pull over, put the PARKING BRAKE on, and then you are permitted to use the device. Who cares that you have someone else riding with you that could program the device while you safely drive.
Thank you [lawyers + morons] for making it a total pain in the ass to safely use devices like this.
Would eBay (who owns PayPal) have to allow sellers / buyers to use it? I don't think they would.
This is like asking, "would eBay let people pay each other using cash?" In other words, how the hell would eBay stop people from using "gPay"? The only question is would eBay make it EASY to use gPay, like they do with paypal. Obviously the answer to that is NO.
Just kidding.
Indiana.
Although this is correct, I have to agree with the grandparent's intent.
And what was his intent? He stated, "Actually, they are taking care of their end users: The advertisers." To me it was the implication is that Google doesn't care about the users, only the advertisers. Anyone with a brain can see that makes no sense, because if you don't take care of the users, they'll disappear, and with them, the advertisers. Jesus.
We are not their customers, we are the raw matierial for their product, which is advertising. Google Advertising is their product, and advertisers are their customers.
Who cares what we're called and what the advertisers are called? The fact is everyone is benefiting from the relationship. We get free services which are by-and-large agreed to be great. They make money. The advertisers attract customers.
Please enlighten me as to what the problem is with this scenario?
I dunno. In the context of advertising-supported services, I'm having trouble reconciling that statement with the success of commercial television.
Or for that matter, the success of Microsoft software.
You are correct, I should have said, "If Google's products sucked, not enough people would use them for Google to turn a profit on the advertising." I just sort of summarized that.
We who use Google products aren't the end users. We're the product that Google sells to the advertisers. It's the same with any other advertiser or advertising-supported medium.
I don't understand why that's so hard for people to figure out.
Maybe because it's a naive viewpoint that others don't agree with?
People that use Google's products are end-users, by the very definition.
If Google's products sucked, no one would USE them. Clearly they do not suck.
Advertisers pay for your use of the service, since you do not.
Therefore it is an even exchange that benefits everyone:
(a) You get access to a product you enjoy without paying for it.
(b) Advertisers get the opportunity to sell you their products.
(c) Google makes enough money to pay their expenses and earn a nice profit.
Sorry if there's not enough hyperbole in that description for you.
Spammers will not live long on Goodmail, therefore your analogies are wrong.
In Soviet Russia, you drive the new Honda Accord.
The magic bullet theory was true!
The KGB really did kill Kennedy!
first, we helped create the situation in 39 with the punative versailles treaty. If the west had not destroyed gernmany's economy hitler probably would not have come to power.
Second regarding Iran. The first big case of blowback. The CIA supported a coup against
the first democratically elected government in iran in 1953.
Again, let me re-iterate that I think the US is too involved in everyday proceedings in foreign countries. However, the versailles treaty doesn't mean it's ok for Hitler to create a holocaust, and a coup d'etat in 53 doesn't mean it's OK for Iran to create nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. Just because we helped Kuwait send back an attack from a dictator, or made agreements with the Saudi Arabian government for military base placements doesn't mean its OK to kill 3000 innocent people.
I think their public policy stems from that, our support of the shah, and our unquestioning support of israel. isn't it interesting that israel has nuclear weapons, but isn't brought up to the security council for it?
No, why should it be? Israel's stated policy is not to destroy Iran or Palestine. Israel has been making an effort at peace, which is more than I can say for Palestine or Iran. Israel has had nukes for how long, and how many times have they nuked Palestine or Iran or any other country? Zero times. Iran has UN sanctions against it forbidding it from pursuing nuclear activity for very good reason. In addition, the UN is overwhelmingly pro-Muslim and anti-Israel, just based on its membership alone.
How on earth are you comparing Israel and Iran?
I want to know specifically what freedoms have you lost?
Please don't regurgitate what you've read on slashdot, actually list freedoms you've lost.
How hard is it to not run software mailed to you by a stranger?
Not hard.
How hard is it to not run software mailed to you from a (forged) sender you do know?
Apparantly much harder.
I don't know what did happen, and I don't have any real good theories of my own, but what I do know is that the current popular theory blaming this on some vague organization across the globe stinks like shit.
Let's see. We know who did it, they were al Qaeda members. We know Osama has never denied doing it, even though the blame has been laid at his feet. We know he orchestrated the original attempt to blow up the twin towers. We know al Qaeda like to strike again at targets if it doesn't first succeed. We've caught other al Qaeda members that helped plan it. And no other group fits the puzzle.
I'm sorry if you have some reason to think it "stinks like shit," but Occam's Razor applies here.
Simple, stop poking our nose in other countries business. Terrorism does not happen in a vacuum. It happens because our government is playing empire in someone elses land.
We tried that. 1939. Didn't turn out so well.
And this is coming from me as a libertarian who agrees we should not be so entrenched overseas... but there are places where our nose does belong. Iran is probably trying to create nuclear weapons. Their public policy is that Israel should be blown off the face of the Earth. Is it OK for us to intervene now?
But I think you're implying that it's OK for Osama bin Laden to kill 3000 innocent Americans because the US had bases in Saudi Arabia. Is that what you're saying? Because that was the main reason Osama was supposedly pissed at us. Then Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and we went to war to push him back, and then Osama said he was mad because Iraqi children died then and in the aftermath. Did he blame Saddam? A little, but mostly us.
Or does he just want to spread militant Islam across the globe?
See, it's hard to tell exactly what Osama wants, because he's said all of these things and more, depending on what he thinks will go over best with the current group that would like to appease him. The latest is that they will stop plotting to kill Americans if we pull out of Iraq. Right...
We weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan when 9/11 happened. Nor when they bombed the embassies in Africa. Nor when they originally tried to bomb the twin towers.
There is no rhyme or reason to madmen, so please, spare us the attempt to try and suggest that if we just appease the terrorists, they'll leave us alone. It has never worked.
We are exercising our right to privacy in our own home is what we are doing.
Not that I think THE GOVERNMENT should know what we are browsing, but I'm really curious how you are PRIVATELY BROWSING the internet?
Seriously? Unless you are running all of these servers on your home LAN, or you go through the headaches required to really anonymize your browsing, you are most definitely not surfing privately in your own home.
I'm no Apple-ologist, but to say Steve Jobs is an overpaid CEO is to be a fucking moron.
If any CEO has ever deserved the millions they earn, I damn well believe it's him.
But seriously, I should point out that 52 pounds over 3 months is equal to 4 pounds a week. That is safe. I've heard of people dropping 50 pounds in a month, which is scary. Christian Bale went down to 121 lb, then all the way back up to 220 lb in a short period of time, to transition from The Machinist to Batman Begins roles:
5 .htm
"Bale normally weighs around 185 and dropped down to 121 for "The Machinist." He then went all the way up to 220 when that finished in order to get ready for "Batman Begins." By the time shooting began, Bale's weight hovered around 190. All of this occurred over a period of five months."
http://movies.about.com/od/batman/a/batmancb06080
Holy crap! You lost 52lbs in three months? That can't possibly be healthy. Aren't you supposed to limit your weight loss to a few pounds per week?
You should limit your weight loss to a small percentage of your total mass, per week.
Luckily the grandparent weighed 5200 pounds when he started dieting, so really he only lost 1% of 3 months.
China signed AND ratified the Kyoto protocol.
i on_of_China
Big whoop. The protocol says China does not have to do anything because it's a "developing country." Why WOULDN'T they sign it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Posit
It is happening
Not every scientist agrees on this point.
We all agree that it ain't good for us.
That is also debatable. You could say GW could have an adverse effect on some forms of life, but it could also have a positive effect on other forms of life. How do you measure the two and balance them against each other? Whenever we get involved in anything having to do with the environment, we are having good and bad effects on different things.
China has just recently begun correcting many of their environmental policies. They spent the better part of 3 decades ramping up industry without concern for the environment, but the government is trying to fix the problem. The people are even rioting over the pollution issue now. They are trying, which is more than I can say for us in the U.S.
Do you have any proof at all to back this up?
As for the US not "trying," I see more hybrids on the street every day, and more demand means more will be built. The most popular car, the Toyota Camry, will be available in a hybrid version in 2007. There are luxury hybrids, SUV hybrids, regular sedan hybrids, and small hybrids. That's a great start. Now if we could replace some of these coal burning stations with nuclear energy, that'd be even better. But many environmentalists have a strong opposition to nuclear energy, often irrationally.