People love to assume that freedom of speech and freedom of the press allow them to say anything or publish anything they like without suffering any consequences. It doesn't work that way, folks. Congress is prohibited from enacting any laws which prevent you from saying or publishing, but nothing requires Congress or anyone else to protect you from the consequences of your actions.
Perhaps you assume that if you are not free to perform an action without regard to consequences, then you are not truly free to perform the action. If so, then you are truly misguided.
.. And assuming the imminent release date of a pending OS upgrade is really a trade secret, which seems ludicrous.
It seems ludicrous to some perhaps, but seeming so to some doesn't make it so. Perhaps you would like to present some points to convince the rest of us that it is ludicrous so we can address those points. Or would you prefer that we take your word for it?
The National Security Agency/Central Security Service is America's cryptologic organization. It coordinates, directs, and performs highly specialized activities to protect U.S. information systems and produce foreign intelligence information. A high technology organization, NSA is on the frontiers of communications and data processing. It is also one of the most important centers of foreign language analysis and research within the government.
I suppose I could go back and check, but his main valid complaint about the PPC was that it couldn't run x86 code. And that, I believe, is the crux of his objection to it. I sympathize with him, but I don't consider that a technical superiority of the AMD64 over the PPC.
I'm not trolling--I'd kill for sloppy focus in OS X.
Have you checked CodeTek's Virtual Desktop Pro? It has a rather tweakable focus-follows-mouse. Try the demo and see whether it will work as you like. If it does killing will not be required, but $40 will be. I don't think that the free version has a flexible focus option.
During the Vietnam war, the DoD reported that the Air Force was working on engines which generated less smoke. That was true, but it might have had something to do with the fact that those long black trails behind the US fighters made them pretty easy for the Vietnamese to spot. As it happens the engines in the Vietnamese MiGs produced very little smoke -- that had nothing to do with environmental considerations, either.
I am confident that there are reasons other than environmental considerations for any change made to military equpment, and I would be rather dismayed to learn that there were not.
Would you rather that the righteous wealthy few be allowed to continue concentrating obscene wealth, giving little to nothing back from the society it exploited it from, until it gets to the point that the less fortunate revolt and tear down your little gated communities?
In my preferred world, you are free to give as much back to society as you feel appropriate. You are not, however, allowed to force anyone else to do so. In fact, you are not allowed to force anyone else to do anything at all just because you happen to think it is "just".
You see, others have an equal right to determine for themselves what they consider just and you have no right to force your views on them. If you disagree, then perhaps you can tell us why you have that right and they have no comparable right to force their views on you.
Please elaborate for us on your enlightened and well-considered opinion.
I'm sure they could have. Perhaps they saw no reason to. A lower price might make you happier, but as long as they can sell them at the current price as fast as they can make them it's hard to see why they should reduce it.
I wonder what percentage of people who call themselves an "IT professional" have any competence in the field? Perhaps that percentage is a little higher now than it was a couple of years ago; if true, that would be a good thing.
In truth, regardless of the field the percentage of people who are really competent is less then we would like to think. Remember that the next time you see a doctor.
You can play lots of formats on an iPod. All Real (or anyone else) has to do is remove any DMA restrictions on their AAC files and the job is done. Now, if they are saying that they process their files so that they are protected AAC (FairPlay) and will play on the iPod then there might be an issue.
If Real was saying that you could take FairPlay protected tracks purchased from iTMS and play them on some other device then they would likely have a very serious problem. Simply saying that they can now "process" files purchased from their store to play on an iPod is meaningless. Of course, their sources could dry up if it turns out that they are unprotecting their tracks, but that wouldn't be Apple's problem.
That would be the job of the trial lawyers, wouldn't it?
And in any case, Pfizer wouldn't be the target in this case since Pfizer wouldn't be the one selling the product to you. Of course, if the SPAM linked directly to a Pfizer site, then Pfizer indeed would be, and should be, the target.
Makes for an easy way to put someone out of business, right? Just send out SPAM and link to their page. But that is indeed where the trial lawyers come in. There has to be money trail for a valid claim. If it could be shown that Pfizer paid a dime to a SPAMmer to advertise their product, then sue Pfizer out of business.
A more effective solution would be to authorize class-action lawsuits against any company which uses spam -- not sends it, uses it. At the same time, we could sharply restrict all other class-action lawsuits so the lawyers would be hungry and vicious. They could easily bankrupt any company that was foolish enough to allow spam to be sent in their name. Then when all the spammers were out of business, the trial lawyers would starve, and the world would be a better place.
Of course any solution -- even baying at the moon -- would be more effective than relying on the UN.
I think the key here is to get these anti-spam laws passed in (nearly) all countries so that spammers have fewer places to hide geographically.
"Fewer" doesn't help; all they need is one. Expecting a United Nations sponsored legal solution to help here is equivalent to saying that there wouldn't be any problems in the world "if we could all just get along".
There are only two ways to restrain people from doing things we don't like: social ostracism or physical force. Spammers are not likely to respond directly to social ostracism.
Do the math. The "Rich" pay for most of what government does. There are really two groups of people in the US: those who pay more than their share, and those who pay less. You can call them "providers" and "parasites" for short. In 2003 the dividing line was $16780 (in Federal taxes only). If you paid more than that in taxes, then you're a provider; otherwise a parasite.
And that right includes not only the right to be left alone by spammers, but the right to be left alone by anyone else we do not wish to hear. A demonstrator's right to be heard does not trump my right to be left alone. Any attempt to speak to me when I do not wish to listen is not "the right of free speech", it is an assault on me, and I should be free to take appropriate action.
You are free to say what you want to people who want to hear you; you are not entitled to force your unwanted advances on those who do not.
Actually, there is a fairly universal concept of "right" and "wrong" with respect to human society. Human culture is not infinitely plastic. It is a product, invariably, of a standard human nature.
And that explains why we all agree on these things right? Well, at least all of us enlightened types who think this way agree on it. And that's all that counts.
Right?
We say this because we've been through it, and know that it's bad stuff.
I.e., we know better than you. And we know better 'cause we are better. And we are better 'cause we learned better. And we know we learned better just because.
Ever see a bum lying on the street when it's cold out? Do you know that he's sleeping? He could be dead or dying right then and there, and no one ever checks.
But you would, right? And no one else would, right? Or you wouldn't. And that would mean you didn't care, right? And if you don't care, why are you bothering to press the point?
Modern people are apathetic and are hardly as kind as you would hope them to be. People die all the time because they don't have the money: even with the socialist ideas in action.
Are you a modern person? Are you apathetic? I don't really hope one way or the other, so the last part of you statement is rather meaningless. But if you are a modern person, and you are not apathetic, then why do you think you are the only non-apathetic modern person? If you want to help others, then by all means do so. If you want to compel others to help involuntarily, then you clearly must have some basis for believing that your view of what is "right" is more "right" than the other person's. Right? Care to tell us all just what gives you the right to try and compel others to do what makes you feel good?
These are socialist ideas, a purely capitalistic society would not provide anything for anyone without pay. If you can't pay for that heart surgery, you die.
Certainly an entertaining way to put it, but it seems to overlook a few things. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that if you can't pay for that heart surgery, and you have no support group who will help you pay for it, and you can't find a charity group to help you out, and if you can't find a doctor who will do it in exchange for a handshake, then you die. Of course, you die eventually anyway, but I think we get your point.
The real issue is that people have ties, and groups. If the people in that group want to pool resources to help out those who need it they will. That's the way society worked for a long time. But when you attempt to force people to support others with whom they have no ties, and in many cases actively oppose for one reason or another, you are going to have problems.
In general, we lust to force others to do as we think right; unfortunately, we don't all agree on what is right, and the other guy wants just as much to force his beliefs on us. Causes a bit of a problem now and then.
Most Windows products are junk. Vendors get the idea that it's okay for software to be junk; people will buy it anyway.
The idea that a vendor will do a crude port of a product to Linux, then abandon the market because it doesn't sell also applies to Mac software. There have been pretty good ports of Windows software to Macintosh that bombed because the Windows products that were ported were junk to begin with -- it just didn't make any difference in the Windows market because people bought them anyway.
Oh, yes. There are lots or products for Windows, but how many of them are better than very poor? Perhaps ten percent?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you assume that if you are not free to perform an action without regard to consequences, then you are not truly free to perform the action. If so, then you are truly misguided.
And if you know as much about your current environment, then you have no need for a job, or food, or shelter either. So what's the problem?
If you like... You call it. I'll still wager they do their job better than you do yours.
I would wager that every military person you know does his job better than you do yours -- whatever it might be.
I suppose I could go back and check, but his main valid complaint about the PPC was that it couldn't run x86 code. And that, I believe, is the crux of his objection to it. I sympathize with him, but I don't consider that a technical superiority of the AMD64 over the PPC.
And your only real reason is that it's not an x86, right? Or did I miss something?
I am confident that there are reasons other than environmental considerations for any change made to military equpment, and I would be rather dismayed to learn that there were not.
You see, others have an equal right to determine for themselves what they consider just and you have no right to force your views on them. If you disagree, then perhaps you can tell us why you have that right and they have no comparable right to force their views on you.
Please elaborate for us on your enlightened and well-considered opinion.
In truth, regardless of the field the percentage of people who are really competent is less then we would like to think. Remember that the next time you see a doctor.
You can play lots of formats on an iPod. All Real (or anyone else) has to do is remove any DMA restrictions on their AAC files and the job is done. Now, if they are saying that they process their files so that they are protected AAC (FairPlay) and will play on the iPod then there might be an issue.
If Real was saying that you could take FairPlay protected tracks purchased from iTMS and play them on some other device then they would likely have a very serious problem. Simply saying that they can now "process" files purchased from their store to play on an iPod is meaningless. Of course, their sources could dry up if it turns out that they are unprotecting their tracks, but that wouldn't be Apple's problem.
And in any case, Pfizer wouldn't be the target in this case since Pfizer wouldn't be the one selling the product to you. Of course, if the SPAM linked directly to a Pfizer site, then Pfizer indeed would be, and should be, the target.
Makes for an easy way to put someone out of business, right? Just send out SPAM and link to their page. But that is indeed where the trial lawyers come in. There has to be money trail for a valid claim. If it could be shown that Pfizer paid a dime to a SPAMmer to advertise their product, then sue Pfizer out of business.
Of course any solution -- even baying at the moon -- would be more effective than relying on the UN.
Do the math. The "Rich" pay for most of what government does. There are really two groups of people in the US: those who pay more than their share, and those who pay less. You can call them "providers" and "parasites" for short. In 2003 the dividing line was $16780 (in Federal taxes only). If you paid more than that in taxes, then you're a provider; otherwise a parasite.
And that right includes not only the right to be left alone by spammers, but the right to be left alone by anyone else we do not wish to hear. A demonstrator's right to be heard does not trump my right to be left alone. Any attempt to speak to me when I do not wish to listen is not "the right of free speech", it is an assault on me, and I should be free to take appropriate action. You are free to say what you want to people who want to hear you; you are not entitled to force your unwanted advances on those who do not.
Right?
I.e., we know better than you. And we know better 'cause we are better. And we are better 'cause we learned better. And we know we learned better just because.Right?
Are you a modern person? Are you apathetic? I don't really hope one way or the other, so the last part of you statement is rather meaningless. But if you are a modern person, and you are not apathetic, then why do you think you are the only non-apathetic modern person? If you want to help others, then by all means do so. If you want to compel others to help involuntarily, then you clearly must have some basis for believing that your view of what is "right" is more "right" than the other person's. Right? Care to tell us all just what gives you the right to try and compel others to do what makes you feel good?
The real issue is that people have ties, and groups. If the people in that group want to pool resources to help out those who need it they will. That's the way society worked for a long time. But when you attempt to force people to support others with whom they have no ties, and in many cases actively oppose for one reason or another, you are going to have problems.
In general, we lust to force others to do as we think right; unfortunately, we don't all agree on what is right, and the other guy wants just as much to force his beliefs on us. Causes a bit of a problem now and then.
The idea that a vendor will do a crude port of a product to Linux, then abandon the market because it doesn't sell also applies to Mac software. There have been pretty good ports of Windows software to Macintosh that bombed because the Windows products that were ported were junk to begin with -- it just didn't make any difference in the Windows market because people bought them anyway.
Oh, yes. There are lots or products for Windows, but how many of them are better than very poor? Perhaps ten percent?