I like Wal-Mart, and am sorry to see negative stories coming to light about them.
Why are you sorry to see anything negative said about Wal-Mart? They are not a family member of yours; they are a business that are there for one reason only. That reason is not to be your buddy pal, but to try to separate you from your $$. This is not a mean statement, it is simple fact. They are there to make money.
The root of this story is that Wal-Mart sees another entity (Apple) has invented a better way of performing the business of distributing movies. In response, they have a choice of either embettering their business practices or of using strongarm tactics. Unfortunately they have chosen the latter, which is odd because the way they got so popular is by choosing the former; it's their better & more efficient business practices that have led to them being in every town, serving you with lower prices, and apparently becoming your favorite store.
Extending your analogy that someone has to carry milk for the masses, it is not the case that the milk store has to threaten the cows that they should not sell their milk to anyone else. That action is not only no good for the cows, it's no good for you, because it causes your milk prices to go up and also gives the milk store no incentive to ensure quality product. Monopolies are like that; they stifle the natural capitalist process.
Everything you say is all lies...All of the events you quote were staged for the purpose of generating all lies...
Everything everyone else says is all lies, or, if it is true, is taken out of context in such a way as to become all lies
Did we read the same legal document, because this is not what I got out of it. He certainly does not say "everything" is lies and "all" the events were staged for generating lies. Further, it seems to me that he has quite a few valid points, such as:
* She had every opportunity to get his side of the story and never made any such effort,
* She knew in advance that many of her claims were false,
* She knew in advance that many of the quotes she attributes to certain speakers were never uttered by those speakers.
Getting his reactions and allowing him to respond is not legally required, but it does demonstrate (as he claims) an agenda. The other two points would seem to be simple and demonstrable statements of fact that will be rather damning if this gets to court. Until (if) a rebuttal is issued by the author and the New Yorker, it seems as though this is nearly textbook libel, regardless of whether Yau is a jerk.
You are not entitled to DRM-free content. The entitlement disease is rampant on Slashdot.
Apparently so is the "fuck the consumer" disease. You seem to be confusing the concepts of "earned" and "entitled". When a user pays for content, they have the right to play it. That is not "entitlement", it is "receiving what one worked for and paid for." If you still disagree, then I suppose you are OK with not being able to drive your car anymore when the manufacturer suddenly decides to make it obsolete. And, actually, to continue that analogy, there are laws in the U.S. that force car (and other product) makers to maintain a supply of parts for their products so that exactly this type of thing cannot happen with material goods. Seems to me it's high time for the same to be legislated of digital media; you should not have your 6 month old purchase of a song or movie suddenly taken from you because they choose not to support it anymore. Or do you support the 'right' of big business to fuck with the consumer in absolutely any way they see fit? I'm sure you don't advocate additional consumer protection laws because you oppose government interfering in our lives, but it sure is interesting how you have no problem with corporations interfering with our lives. Why do you take diametrically opposing views on these two entities when they act (and misbehave) so much alike? And why is the concept of treating the consumer fairly such a low priority for you?
Blocking AIM is usually what happens at two kinds of companies, those that somehow think it will help productivity and those who are security paranoid.
You have one of my employer's credit cards in your wallet. Tell me again that we are "paranoid" to block IM...or would you be happy with the possibility of your personal account information being sent out via chat?
That might make it easier for administrators, but it's not realistic in a work environment with different departments needing different apps, and older equipment using an older OS version (and working fine-- why risk breaking it?). Keeping it to 3 or 4 images is more realistic.
Keeping 3 or 4 images is only realistic if you are willing to pay to increase your I.T. staffing. At the large company where I am MacOS administrator, it takes nearly all my time to maintain our single image; if we had 3 or 4 I would absolutely need to hire a second me. Besides, you contradict yourself; you claim the images are "working fine", but obviously they are not or the original poster would not have posted his question; they are not "working fine" if they need patching and management and support, as all systems eventually will. Yes, there is a delicate balance to be struck between the needs of the user and the needs of the I.T. department, but it seems as though his employer has given all the power to the users and none to I.T. He needs to assert his needs and insist on one single image. If they need to customize the image after deployment with their own apps, so be it, but the base image must be the same on all Macs or the nightmare will continue forever. I personally would not accept a Mac administrator position in which the users were allowed to dicatate to me what OS they ran; that is a higher level corporate decision than end-users are in a position to decide. Without central decision making about OS deployments, security is truly impossible as is competent, professional support. Ad hoc OS deployment begets ad hoc I.T. support.
This isn't even close to news for nerds, or my rights online.
Directly as a result of the very issues covered in the parent article, you are not permitted to use a laptop or iPod when flying into or out of the UK. This directly affects me and many other/. readers and our rights to use technology. Therefore, it very much is news for nerds and our rights. This topid affects us a helluva lot more than the latest/. rumor about a vaporware game coming sometime next year, yet I don't hear you critiquing those types of articles.
You might want to go poke around in/var/vm. Just please don't delete any active swaps or we'll have trouble chatting with you for a while until you reboot.:-)
Specifically because, and I'll quote my original post which you also graciously quoted, "I didn't want to drop $120 on a keyboard & mouse for a $450 computer."
That part of the story is fishy too, for Apple keyboards cost $29, not $60. A nice Kensington mouse is $20. Value yourself enough to spend $49 for your missing input devices and you will be happier. Splurge a little and get back to posting about Slashdot issues more important than USB ports.:-)
Their job is to WORK. I'm a smoker but you don't see me bitching about how mean my boss is for not letting me smoke at my desk, is that any different? Maybe I should hire a lawyer..
Either you're still not getting it or you're a troll. In case it's the former:
1. Nobody has said a single thing about suing, so your "get a lawyer" quote is completely off topic and is a straw man argument.
2. You are well within your rights to quit your job if you consider smoking to be that important to you. This is exactly the same as the employees referred to in TFA who will not take or keep a job where internet access is forbidden. It's called freedom. Try it sometime.
3. Who are you to claim that using the web is not doing one's job? In my case, part of my job is to keep up with the industry. I'm responsible for knowing about and trying new technologies in order to keep my users current and to maximize their productivity. Without the web I would be completely incapable of doing this part of my job description. As it stands, my employer does block some sites that I need to do all of my job and I am forced to go home to download certain software updates that I need to deploy. This is hindering my productivity, not helping it. Yet your draconian measures would deny me all access and therefore eliminate my position and therefore leave all my users frozen in software and hardware time. Bizarre.
4. Who are you to claim that anyone with web access will stop doing all work and surf all day? Are all workers unreliable in your eyes? What a discouraging view of the human race you have.
some people simply cannot afford an $1100.00 computer
Very few people could not afford a $1100 computer. Most of those who claim they cannot are spending $50/month on cell phones, $60/month on cable TV, $100/month eating out. If they got a pay-as-you-go phone with no plan, basic cable, and cooked at home a bit, they'd afford that computer EASILY. It's a matter of priorities in their lives whether they can afford a $1100 computer. For them not to is for them to ignore how important a compter is to have these days; it truly has gotten as necessary as electricity, water, phone, and a car. You can't search for or apply for most jobs without one, for example. To short yourself a good, reliable computer is to be extraordinarily short-sighted.
They were bad for reasons that JMS is making sure to avoid this time. Did you read the linked article where he says he's getting it in writing this time that the studio is not allowed to edit his scripts at all? That is why all the B5 spinoffs were bad; they weren't JMS, they were studio rewriting of JMS. Ick. Have faith and evaluate the new series on its own merits.
Considering that the MacOS version of VirtualPC was the original (and therefore in my eyes the real version), I believe this to be a bad PR move for Microsoft. Not that that's ever seemed to deter them in the past...
-Kurt
Re:Editorial Oversight != Truth (i.e. FOX News)
on
When Wikipedia Fails
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I have been a newsjunkie for nearly 20 years. I consider myself middle-of-the-road, and take every news report with a grain of salt. Heck, I've voted for Republicans and Democrats about evenly. But I was shocked to see the blatant pandering and partisanship displayed by Fox News. It's like the Republican Party's permanent informercial.
Your stated view of yourself as "middle-of-the-road"
No, he did not just state a view; he provided evidence. If he only thought he was a moderate, he would not have voted for Republicans or monitored all (not just liberal) news outlets for two decades. You do not seem capable of (or willing to) distinguish between opinion and fact.
strikes me as being similar to that demonstrated these days by many in the media
It would only strike you that way if you were eager to write off anyone who disagrees with you as a liberal and therefore "one of them". The original poster specifically demonstrated that he was a moderate, a position you apparently dismiss out of hand as not even existing. This indicates you are an extremist. The world is shades of grey, not all black and white.
Well, I guess that Fox News will never be another New York Times [foxnews.com] with its fair mindedness [whitehouse.gov]
Did you really just cite Fox News and the White House as authorities on whether or not the NYT is fair minded?!? Do you even comprehend the concept of bias, regardless of whether it is right- or left-wing? Those two "authorities" you refer to are the furthest it is possible to be from being disinterested 3rd parties with regard to the NYT. Fox has a monetarily-derived conflict of interest on this subject and the White House has a power-derived one. As I stated above, you seem unwilling to accept that there is such a position as a moderate, one that can understand both sides of an issue and report on them with minimal bias. If you did understand this concept, you would have cited one or more moderate references, not right-wing ones.
The more in-depth knowledge you have of some area, the more immune you will be to mindless political requirements
Perhaps, but the more in-depth knowledge you have, the more annoyed you will be by the ignorant requirements put forth by those who have no knowledge at all.
an apple employee told me "Laptop drives die between 2.5 and 3 years after use, it's normal"
I call bullshit. No Apple employee told you that. No offense, but judging from the grammar in your post, I'm guessing English is not your first language, so perhaps you lost something in the translation. It is possible that Apple told you it was not unheard of for a laptop drive to die in 2.5-3 years, and that would be correct. But that is not the same as "normal" and no Apple support tech. I've ever spoken with would say that. They would be fired if they did.
Is there any chance you didn't keep your data backed up and are now blaming Apple for your lack of prudence with regard to this?
Further, I've owned a half dozen Apple portables and while they get warm (as any computer does), none has ever overheated. Where did you get that idea? Oh, right, you got it from the same place you got your quote from Apple about your hard drive: you made it up out of thin air.
It's great to finally see Steve Jobs on the receiving end of needing to wait for and eventually install the next firmware update so his hardware can return to functionality again.
-Kurt
Re:Doesn't pass my smell test as an investment
on
Google's Insular Nature
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
goog stock ought to drop $100 USD just to be priced similar to eBay... then, maybe both of the aforementioned stocks could drop in value by half again, just to be priced more in line with other stocks... (P/E 20-ish).
If only logic like this dictated stock prices. But, instead, groupthink and herd mentality seem to be the prime factors in stock price movement. So if you're not much of a follower and don't think like the crowd, you'll tend to get burned in the Market.
The same words should be more effective coming from Amazon than from Cringely's friend Luis, because people are simply more likely to click.
Not true at all. In a properly targeted campaign, users would be just as likely to click on either ad. If I Google "equation editor" and Luis' ad pops up, I'm just as likely to click on it as I would be if I Googled "Sonicare" and an Amazon ad for a Sonicare toothbrush pops up. Cringley's highly valid point is that because this likelihood is equal, the cost of the ads should be equal. But Luis is charged hundreds of times more than Amazon for the same efficacy. And I wholeheartedly agree with him that this is unfair.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. They prevented him from doing this with their anti-SLAPP motion. These guys are sleaze, but unfortunately they are smart sleaze.
No, it's not, because it is yet another way our society is being fractured into the haves vs. the have-nots. Notice how this fracturing is always being done by the rich and allows their rich buddies to get the goodies while the rest of us get left out. The masses used to be able to go to concerts and sporting events, but when tickets reach $1500 they simply cannot do so anymore. And yet folks like you who say that this is a "good thing" are often also those who lament the public staying in their homes watching TV. Yet the high ticket prices you're defending are a primary reason folks are watching their TV's; it's the only way they can afford to see the concerts or sports anymore. Personally I would not label any development that decreases our overall quality of life as a "good thing".
Apparently those who drive SUV's and are so proud of this they use same for their username are not smart enough to understand this is not an Apple product.
Slashdot Mirror
The root of this story is that Wal-Mart sees another entity (Apple) has invented a better way of performing the business of distributing movies. In response, they have a choice of either embettering their business practices or of using strongarm tactics. Unfortunately they have chosen the latter, which is odd because the way they got so popular is by choosing the former; it's their better & more efficient business practices that have led to them being in every town, serving you with lower prices, and apparently becoming your favorite store.
Extending your analogy that someone has to carry milk for the masses, it is not the case that the milk store has to threaten the cows that they should not sell their milk to anyone else. That action is not only no good for the cows, it's no good for you, because it causes your milk prices to go up and also gives the milk store no incentive to ensure quality product. Monopolies are like that; they stifle the natural capitalist process.
-Kurt
* She had every opportunity to get his side of the story and never made any such effort,
* She knew in advance that many of her claims were false,
* She knew in advance that many of the quotes she attributes to certain speakers were never uttered by those speakers.
Getting his reactions and allowing him to respond is not legally required, but it does demonstrate (as he claims) an agenda. The other two points would seem to be simple and demonstrable statements of fact that will be rather damning if this gets to court. Until (if) a rebuttal is issued by the author and the New Yorker, it seems as though this is nearly textbook libel, regardless of whether Yau is a jerk.
-Kurt
-Kurt
-K
-Kurt
-Kurt
Defendant: "But I only jaywalked!"
Executioner: "The computer's judgement is final." ::readies blue tarp and axe::
-Kurt
-Kurt
1. Nobody has said a single thing about suing, so your "get a lawyer" quote is completely off topic and is a straw man argument.
2. You are well within your rights to quit your job if you consider smoking to be that important to you. This is exactly the same as the employees referred to in TFA who will not take or keep a job where internet access is forbidden. It's called freedom. Try it sometime.
3. Who are you to claim that using the web is not doing one's job? In my case, part of my job is to keep up with the industry. I'm responsible for knowing about and trying new technologies in order to keep my users current and to maximize their productivity. Without the web I would be completely incapable of doing this part of my job description. As it stands, my employer does block some sites that I need to do all of my job and I am forced to go home to download certain software updates that I need to deploy. This is hindering my productivity, not helping it. Yet your draconian measures would deny me all access and therefore eliminate my position and therefore leave all my users frozen in software and hardware time. Bizarre.
4. Who are you to claim that anyone with web access will stop doing all work and surf all day? Are all workers unreliable in your eyes? What a discouraging view of the human race you have.
-Kurt
-Kurt
-Kurt
"Virtual PC Is Now Free!"
Considering that the MacOS version of VirtualPC was the original (and therefore in my eyes the real version), I believe this to be a bad PR move for Microsoft. Not that that's ever seemed to deter them in the past...
-Kurt
-Kurt
-Kurt
should read:
At least this is the code my washer seems to use...
-Kurt
Is there any chance you didn't keep your data backed up and are now blaming Apple for your lack of prudence with regard to this?
Further, I've owned a half dozen Apple portables and while they get warm (as any computer does), none has ever overheated. Where did you get that idea? Oh, right, you got it from the same place you got your quote from Apple about your hard drive: you made it up out of thin air.
-Kurt
-Kurt
-Kurt
It's a weird world,
-Kurt
-Kurt
-K
-Kurt
-Kurt