I don't get it... If it is so easy, and legal to strip the DRM from music rented from iTunes, you should be twice as pissed as if it you couldn't remove the DRM. They have added hoops for you to jump through for absolutely no reason. If the DRM stripping is legal and simple, then the only possible reason for the DRM in the first place is that Apple hopes that a certain percentage of people will slip up in bypassing the hoops, and have to pay a second or third time for the same product. Either that, or they are trying to cause problems for their customers if they don't also buy an iPod. Really. You should be MORE pissed at Apple for their DRM. Not less.
Huh, That isn't the scam I thought they were running. Since you can mail three disk for less than a dollar, I thought their scam was to "give" you the disk, but make $6 per sucker in "handling" charges. Maybe they are more devious than anyone thought. Get publicity about how you are being crooked by signing people up for a subscription, then when you apologize, and offer all future disks for $6.95 a pop without the subscription, people don't even realize that they are paying $6 for a "free" disk.
It is amazing that you are actually endorsing the idea that making a 5 year spend a year of their life being terrified of being homeless is good, and that teaching them how money works with real world examples is bad. Simply amazing.
And that is why so many people are permanently in debt. The majority of people now think that how money really works should be hidden from kids until the day they become 'adults', and then they are somehow supposed to instantly understand one of the most complex subjects they will ever learn. In a best case scenario, they expect them to get a part time job at 16, where they pick up even worse habits concerning money, because they can go out and spend every dime they make, the day they get paid with no repercussions.
I can guarantee you that teaching kids how money works by getting them involved with the household finances is going to prepare them for the rest of their lives WAY better than hidding it until they are thrown to the wolves. The only reason that being involved in the household finances should cause any worry for at all for a child is if there is something to actually worry about. The example we are debating right now is a perfect example. Keeping the kid in the loop would have caused no worry, but hiding it caused the kid to spend a year of his life in terror.
If the family finances are in trouble, then it is even more important that the kids understand what is going on so that they can adjust their expectations accordingly, as well as learn what not to do, and why not to do it.
My three year old in very happy, and you can be sure he doesn't 'worry' about money. But he also knows that when dad goes to his client site, or has to stay in his office working, it is so he can earn money. He knows that money is what we trade for our home, our food, and our toys. Heck, he even know that we pay taxes on our income, and why we pay it. When his mom was laid off last year, we discussed it with him and explained what it meant that mom wasn't earning money. When we decided that she would not go back to work, we discussed with him what the trade offs were.
So, now instead of having a kid that thinks that money just shows up, he understands that people give you money in exchange for work. He also understands that by giving up a little on things we buy, he gets to have Mom stay home with him instead of having to go to daycare.
So, instead of spending the next year being terrified that he would be homeless, he can enjoy the time he gets to spend with his mom.
This whole idea that getting kids involved in finances is causing them 'worry' is just simply BS. The example parents were a perfect example of parents being abusive by NOT getting the kids involved.
"If he would have expressed his fear to his parents, they should have told him about the plan and to not worry."
Really, blaming the 5 year old because his parents were abusive is just plain stupid.
You have it backwards. If they had kept you in the loop, you wouldn't have spent a year terrified that you would be out in the streets. Instead you would have understood that your father had a plan. It was totally irresponsible for them to cause you that much unnecessary stress. So, you shouldn't be thanking them for making you think you would be homeless. You should be giving them a big FU for being horrible parents.
"Proper budgeting, hell even SIMPLE budgeting, should be something we teach our kids in school from early to out."
Yes, you are absolutely correct, but our public schools are lost. Unfortunately this generation of parents are particularly crappy, so the idea of teaching your kids things yourself doesn't even come to mind.
Actually since the Baby Boomers, there has been an attitude that "kids shouldn't have to worry about money." That they should just "have the chance to be kids". This has lead to the idea that we should hide finances from kids.
What are you talking about? Bring up the same behaviour with the Xbox and Xbox, and you will have a stream of people explaining why it is ok, necessary, and the right thing to do. Vendor lock in is just a matter of getting deadend to it. In the console world, it started within a few years of it's inception with Atari, and it slipped in before anyone really realized it. So, now it is just accepted as how it's supposed to be in the console world.
I see no difference between the maker of a console locking out third party applications, and the maker of a game console locking out third party applications.
(And just so there is not confusion, we are talking about third party apps that the device maker has not authorized. Both platforms allow authorized third party apps to run.)
Of course we can all look forward to the day that Microsoft releases Vista360. They can start by offering the full MS Office package as "part of the OS". Then with in a few years when 90% of the home users buy a 360 because it is cheaper in the short run, we can forget about running third part apps on our computers unless we buy the $800 Windows Ultimate Corporate Mega Edition SP2.
Ok, to spell it out for you. Kerry incited the guy to resist the cops. He told the guy that he didn't have to leave. When a US Senator tells you that you don't have to leave one of his political events, it is reasonable to believe him. It is irrelevant whether the cops believed him or not, just the same as it would have been irrelevant if the cops in a theater believe the guy yelling "Fire!".
So, clearly your comment that the cops didn't listen to Kerry shows you did not understand the comment put forth.
It is also not a guarantee that Kerry is not the person that pays the cops to be there. I know I don't know who pays for police security at events like this. I would assume that most people don't know for sure. It could be Kerry, it could be the University, or it could be a shared cost. Either way, saying that the guy should have known that Kerry didn't have a say in whether he could stay or not is simply silly.
So, it comes down to, if Kerry really had no say, he was committing a crime by telling the guy he could stay. The police should have arrested him.
Then Kerry should have also been arrested. By telling the guy it was "OK", he was encouraging the man. He was pulling the classing "Yelling fire in a crowded theater". Kerry clearly appeared to be an authority at the venue, and he claimed authority when he told the police not to arrest the man.
IBM already ships what is obviously OpenOffice with Notes 8. They are calling them "Helper Applications". I am very disappointed that they were not integrated though.
Let me add that the guy was given permission to behave that way. When the cops first started trying to escort him out of the building, Kerry clearly says "It's OK, let me answer the question." So, either Kerry should have been arrested for the proverbial "yelling fire in a crowded theater", or the guy had a legitimate right to be there, and the police were committing an illegal act by removing him.
So, when the police are anally raping you with a plunger, you are supposed to calmly wait until they are done before you file a civil lawsuit in court?
I understand that this guy was not being raped, but making the blanket statement that "If you want to defend yourself against the police, you do that in court." is just wrong.
"See I guess unlike your country in the US people expect the police to most of the time not be corrupt, horribly, bastards that will torture to death anyone they arrest. It's nice to live in a civilized country, you should try it some time."
Well, that's not really true. It's really more that we have just accepted that the police are corrupt horrible bastards, and that the corruption goes all the way to the top, so helping someone whose civil rights are being violated will just result in our own beatings and arrest.
"He was asked to leave."
He was also told his behavior was OK by the person that presumably had authority to do that. Kerry said "It's OK, let me answer the question". So, either the police were using excessive force, given the fact that they were dealing with a man that obviously believed he had right to be there, and had been told that his presence was OK. He was also not a threat to anyone around him.
If Kerry had the authority to grant access to the venue, then the police were acting WAY outside their authority in a criminal fashion. If Kerry did not have the authority to grant access to the venue, then the police should have arrested Kerry for inciting violence. If Kerry did not have the authority to grand access to the venue, then his actions were exactly what is meant when people use the example that "You are not allowed to yell FIRE in a crowded theater."
So, did the police violate the law, or did Kerry?
More recently, the Air Force ran those kinds of ads. With the Satellite hokeyed up on the roof. when the signal goes out, the family calls to the daughter to fix it, and she goes up on the roof to adjust the direction of the dish. Apparently the Air Force wants people who are smart enough to point a dish, but not smart enough to secure it properly. Well, that and people smart enough to know how to reboot Windows in safe mode.
If the desktop era ends, it will more likely be because the desktop computer gets replaced with dumb terminals that can connect to your pen sized miniature computer. So, while I disagree on the details of our fantasy future sci-fi tech, I agree that it is not in our near future.
"This is a point of contention, but MS says they needed to do the update to continue to notify users of actual updates."
How is it that every person on the planet does not immediately see this as an obvious lie? If they could notify users before, they could notify users later.
Now, I'm not saying that the passage has been open in the past, but unless there was permanent observation of the passage, we certainly cannot say it has never been open. You listed many dates, but where there people their EVERY year to see if the passage was open? We are in the situation today, that we can know exactly (probably down to the hour) that the passage became clear. If the passage was also clear in 1540 through 1545, we wouldn't know it.
Obviously, this is something to watch, but by making clearly untrue statements, fuel is given to those that are skeptical.
Also, A quick google shows that RoaldAmundsen sailed it in 1905? Or am I misunderstanding the story?
And that the Vikings were sailing it sometime between 1200 and 1500 A.D.
I'm not saying that chiropractors are all charlatans, as I have had my back fixed a couple of times where I was walking hunched over for weeks, and after a single adjustment, I could walk straight again, but people should realize that even in the best of situations, "adjustments" are no different than cracking knuckles. Once in a while isn't the end of the world, but if you do it all the time, you will eventually have problems in those joints.
Two mutually exclusive things. If you cannot redistribute the code without the license, then you cannot "do whatever the hell you want with the code."
Heck, if you cannot "claim ownership of the shit you didn't write", then you cannot "do whatever the hell you want with the code."
I have now problems with the BSD license, but the BSD folks that keep repeating the mantra that the BSD license is better than GPL because you can "do whatever the hell you want with the code." do themselves and those looking to use the license, a disservice by not being totally honest.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get it... If it is so easy, and legal to strip the DRM from music rented from iTunes, you should be twice as pissed as if it you couldn't remove the DRM. They have added hoops for you to jump through for absolutely no reason. If the DRM stripping is legal and simple, then the only possible reason for the DRM in the first place is that Apple hopes that a certain percentage of people will slip up in bypassing the hoops, and have to pay a second or third time for the same product. Either that, or they are trying to cause problems for their customers if they don't also buy an iPod. Really. You should be MORE pissed at Apple for their DRM. Not less.
Huh, That isn't the scam I thought they were running. Since you can mail three disk for less than a dollar, I thought their scam was to "give" you the disk, but make $6 per sucker in "handling" charges. Maybe they are more devious than anyone thought. Get publicity about how you are being crooked by signing people up for a subscription, then when you apologize, and offer all future disks for $6.95 a pop without the subscription, people don't even realize that they are paying $6 for a "free" disk.
OK, now I'm curious. What could you have possibly meant by
"If he would have expressed his fear to his parents, they should have told him about the plan and to not worry."
other than pointing out the child's error?
"A 5 year old shouldn't worry about finances."
It is amazing that you are actually endorsing the idea that making a 5 year spend a year of their life being terrified of being homeless is good, and that teaching them how money works with real world examples is bad. Simply amazing.
And that is why so many people are permanently in debt. The majority of people now think that how money really works should be hidden from kids until the day they become 'adults', and then they are somehow supposed to instantly understand one of the most complex subjects they will ever learn. In a best case scenario, they expect them to get a part time job at 16, where they pick up even worse habits concerning money, because they can go out and spend every dime they make, the day they get paid with no repercussions.
I can guarantee you that teaching kids how money works by getting them involved with the household finances is going to prepare them for the rest of their lives WAY better than hidding it until they are thrown to the wolves. The only reason that being involved in the household finances should cause any worry for at all for a child is if there is something to actually worry about. The example we are debating right now is a perfect example. Keeping the kid in the loop would have caused no worry, but hiding it caused the kid to spend a year of his life in terror.
If the family finances are in trouble, then it is even more important that the kids understand what is going on so that they can adjust their expectations accordingly, as well as learn what not to do, and why not to do it.
My three year old in very happy, and you can be sure he doesn't 'worry' about money. But he also knows that when dad goes to his client site, or has to stay in his office working, it is so he can earn money. He knows that money is what we trade for our home, our food, and our toys. Heck, he even know that we pay taxes on our income, and why we pay it. When his mom was laid off last year, we discussed it with him and explained what it meant that mom wasn't earning money. When we decided that she would not go back to work, we discussed with him what the trade offs were.
So, now instead of having a kid that thinks that money just shows up, he understands that people give you money in exchange for work. He also understands that by giving up a little on things we buy, he gets to have Mom stay home with him instead of having to go to daycare.
So, instead of spending the next year being terrified that he would be homeless, he can enjoy the time he gets to spend with his mom.
This whole idea that getting kids involved in finances is causing them 'worry' is just simply BS. The example parents were a perfect example of parents being abusive by NOT getting the kids involved.
"If he would have expressed his fear to his parents, they should have told him about the plan and to not worry."
Really, blaming the 5 year old because his parents were abusive is just plain stupid.
You have it backwards. If they had kept you in the loop, you wouldn't have spent a year terrified that you would be out in the streets. Instead you would have understood that your father had a plan. It was totally irresponsible for them to cause you that much unnecessary stress. So, you shouldn't be thanking them for making you think you would be homeless. You should be giving them a big FU for being horrible parents.
"Proper budgeting, hell even SIMPLE budgeting, should be something we teach our kids in school from early to out."
Yes, you are absolutely correct, but our public schools are lost. Unfortunately this generation of parents are particularly crappy, so the idea of teaching your kids things yourself doesn't even come to mind.
Actually since the Baby Boomers, there has been an attitude that "kids shouldn't have to worry about money." That they should just "have the chance to be kids". This has lead to the idea that we should hide finances from kids.
Your inability to understand simple English is certainly not an indication that I am behaving like a "spastic geek".
What are you talking about? Bring up the same behaviour with the Xbox and Xbox, and you will have a stream of people explaining why it is ok, necessary, and the right thing to do. Vendor lock in is just a matter of getting deadend to it. In the console world, it started within a few years of it's inception with Atari, and it slipped in before anyone really realized it. So, now it is just accepted as how it's supposed to be in the console world.
I see no difference between the maker of a console locking out third party applications, and the maker of a game console locking out third party applications.
(And just so there is not confusion, we are talking about third party apps that the device maker has not authorized. Both platforms allow authorized third party apps to run.) Of course we can all look forward to the day that Microsoft releases Vista360. They can start by offering the full MS Office package as "part of the OS". Then with in a few years when 90% of the home users buy a 360 because it is cheaper in the short run, we can forget about running third part apps on our computers unless we buy the $800 Windows Ultimate Corporate Mega Edition SP2.
That is simply a brilliant idea for an office suite's name.
Ok, to spell it out for you. Kerry incited the guy to resist the cops. He told the guy that he didn't have to leave. When a US Senator tells you that you don't have to leave one of his political events, it is reasonable to believe him. It is irrelevant whether the cops believed him or not, just the same as it would have been irrelevant if the cops in a theater believe the guy yelling "Fire!".
So, clearly your comment that the cops didn't listen to Kerry shows you did not understand the comment put forth.
It is also not a guarantee that Kerry is not the person that pays the cops to be there. I know I don't know who pays for police security at events like this. I would assume that most people don't know for sure. It could be Kerry, it could be the University, or it could be a shared cost. Either way, saying that the guy should have known that Kerry didn't have a say in whether he could stay or not is simply silly.
So, it comes down to, if Kerry really had no say, he was committing a crime by telling the guy he could stay. The police should have arrested him.
You did not reply to my post. Reread it, and perhaps you will understand what was written.
Then Kerry should have also been arrested. By telling the guy it was "OK", he was encouraging the man. He was pulling the classing "Yelling fire in a crowded theater". Kerry clearly appeared to be an authority at the venue, and he claimed authority when he told the police not to arrest the man.
Watch the video again. Kerry gave him permission. "It's Ok. Let me answer the question."
IBM already ships what is obviously OpenOffice with Notes 8. They are calling them "Helper Applications". I am very disappointed that they were not integrated though.
Let me add that the guy was given permission to behave that way. When the cops first started trying to escort him out of the building, Kerry clearly says "It's OK, let me answer the question." So, either Kerry should have been arrested for the proverbial "yelling fire in a crowded theater", or the guy had a legitimate right to be there, and the police were committing an illegal act by removing him.
So, when the police are anally raping you with a plunger, you are supposed to calmly wait until they are done before you file a civil lawsuit in court?
I understand that this guy was not being raped, but making the blanket statement that "If you want to defend yourself against the police, you do that in court." is just wrong.
"See I guess unlike your country in the US people expect the police to most of the time not be corrupt, horribly, bastards that will torture to death anyone they arrest. It's nice to live in a civilized country, you should try it some time."
Well, that's not really true. It's really more that we have just accepted that the police are corrupt horrible bastards, and that the corruption goes all the way to the top, so helping someone whose civil rights are being violated will just result in our own beatings and arrest.
"He was asked to leave."
He was also told his behavior was OK by the person that presumably had authority to do that. Kerry said "It's OK, let me answer the question". So, either the police were using excessive force, given the fact that they were dealing with a man that obviously believed he had right to be there, and had been told that his presence was OK. He was also not a threat to anyone around him. If Kerry had the authority to grant access to the venue, then the police were acting WAY outside their authority in a criminal fashion. If Kerry did not have the authority to grant access to the venue, then the police should have arrested Kerry for inciting violence. If Kerry did not have the authority to grand access to the venue, then his actions were exactly what is meant when people use the example that "You are not allowed to yell FIRE in a crowded theater." So, did the police violate the law, or did Kerry?
"Faith" is just the possesive form of the word superstition. It makes it sound more legitimate.
More recently, the Air Force ran those kinds of ads. With the Satellite hokeyed up on the roof. when the signal goes out, the family calls to the daughter to fix it, and she goes up on the roof to adjust the direction of the dish. Apparently the Air Force wants people who are smart enough to point a dish, but not smart enough to secure it properly. Well, that and people smart enough to know how to reboot Windows in safe mode.
If the desktop era ends, it will more likely be because the desktop computer gets replaced with dumb terminals that can connect to your pen sized miniature computer. So, while I disagree on the details of our fantasy future sci-fi tech, I agree that it is not in our near future.
"This is a point of contention, but MS says they needed to do the update to continue to notify users of actual updates."
How is it that every person on the planet does not immediately see this as an obvious lie? If they could notify users before, they could notify users later.
Now, I'm not saying that the passage has been open in the past, but unless there was permanent observation of the passage, we certainly cannot say it has never been open. You listed many dates, but where there people their EVERY year to see if the passage was open? We are in the situation today, that we can know exactly (probably down to the hour) that the passage became clear. If the passage was also clear in 1540 through 1545, we wouldn't know it.
Obviously, this is something to watch, but by making clearly untrue statements, fuel is given to those that are skeptical.
Also, A quick google shows that Roald Amundsen sailed it in 1905? Or am I misunderstanding the story?
And that the Vikings were sailing it sometime between 1200 and 1500 A.D.
I'm not saying that chiropractors are all charlatans, as I have had my back fixed a couple of times where I was walking hunched over for weeks, and after a single adjustment, I could walk straight again, but people should realize that even in the best of situations, "adjustments" are no different than cracking knuckles. Once in a while isn't the end of the world, but if you do it all the time, you will eventually have problems in those joints.
It's funny, that was the exact same thing I was thinking when I read the comment.
Two mutually exclusive things. If you cannot redistribute the code without the license, then you cannot "do whatever the hell you want with the code."
Heck, if you cannot "claim ownership of the shit you didn't write", then you cannot "do whatever the hell you want with the code."
I have now problems with the BSD license, but the BSD folks that keep repeating the mantra that the BSD license is better than GPL because you can "do whatever the hell you want with the code." do themselves and those looking to use the license, a disservice by not being totally honest.