The store can take back the package of almonds and return it to the manufacturer. At the very least, the store can take the product off the shelf. I don't expect Safeway to know every single product they sell. If customers complain that there is a problem with the product, I do expect Safeway to look into it. If they find there is a problem, I expect them to stop selling it.
How do you suppose Apple bypass copyright law? The most Apple can maybe do is have shows list the total number of episodes in the future but they may get resistance from the content holders about this.
This is a good question. It also has an easy answer. Timothy Cook can call up Josh Sapan and tell him that he is creating a problem for them. He can then further explain that if they don't rectify the problem by either refunding the money or supplying the rest of the season, AMC will no longer be welcome to sell their shows in Apple's store.
Apple tells plenty of businesses that they can choose the Apple way or the highway.
Apple really isn't expected to know it before hand. They are expected to refund the money when they find out what happened. Just as I don't expect Costco to know if there is lead pellets in the dried mangos at their store, I do expect them to refund our money when we customers find the lead pellets. It is up to the store to address it with the manufacturer.
If the very public examples you speak of include the Adria Richards situation, then you must have missed the part where she was making dick jokes at the very same conference only she was making them even more publicly than the two men she was trying to shame. The fact is, she was 'slut shaming' them. 'slut shaming' is not right when it happens to women, and it isn't right when it happens to men.
You seem to be confused about the fact that the music industry is most certainly business. It is big business. You can be absolutely sure that if Miley Cyrus were to have walk off the stage in the middle the performance, people would have been calling her 'unprofessional'.
On the other side, you are confused as to the amount of sex involved in the sale of software. The internet (the means of distribution for the software shown at this event) was built on the back of porn. Not just 'I peeked at boobies' kind of apps, but hard core, illegal in some states, illegal to give to children in most states porn.
I was going to agree with your point on the difference between Miley Cyrus at an awards show, and a tech conference, but then I started typing "Awards Show" and realized that the titstare app at a tech conference is far more relevant than Miley Cyrus gyrating half naked with furries at an awards show.
You also have the nice piece of logic "well someone else did something bad so this bad thing is ok too".
I'm not going to side with the parent poster, but the logic he is trying to employ is the same logic that gets used to show discrimination when it isn't white men. If drivers who are black and speeding get ticketed and drivers who are white get pulled over and given a warning, we would all agree that it was racial discrimination. The fact that white people were speeding does not make it OK for black people to speed, but it would show that white people and black people are being held to different standards, and one has the advantage. As a society we consider that very very bad. By the same token, if men are being lambasted and 'slut shamed' for relatively benign sexual expression, while women can do simulated sex on stage in far more public venues, then there shows the same kind of discrimination.
Your loss, my friend. Feminists are just people who believe that women should receive equal pay for equal work,
Those kinds of feminists are few and far between. Pretty much every woman that I have known that actually believes in equal pay for equal work wouldn't call themselves a feminist.
and should have the right to be treated with respect regardless of what they're wearing.
Would you also defend male presenters that got up on stage in nothing but a g-string and assless chaps? I doubt it. Personally, I am happy with women wearing whatever they want, and could not care less if men dressed the same, but the vast majority of 'feminists' take the stance that any kind of dress is always appropriate for women, and that men should remain covered unless swimming. I can tell you that if I showed up at work showing half as much chest as my female peers, someone would be having a conversation with me, and I might get fired for sexual harassment.
All the really smart geek guys are too -- because they're the ones who end up with the smart geek girls.:-)
This comment shows how little you understand what you speak of. This comment basically says that the guys who CLAIM to be feminist are the really smart ones because they tell women what they want to hear so that they can bang them. Your views on what makes someone a 'feminist' is that they pretend to be PC so that they can objectify and manipulate the opposite gender. That is the kind of 'feminism' that so many men are complaining about.
Oddly, in public avenues like these, it almost always appears to come from politically dominant classes, and these hypothetical questions are almost never relevant.
That is simply untrue. For example, in the last big media hoopla about this, it was Adria Richards complaining about men making a joke about 'dongles' after she had, at the exact same event, made a joke about stuffing socks in your pants to make the TSA think they were your dick. The only reason you think that the jokes come predominantly from men is because you are a misandrist.
why the fuck was a 9-year-old in attendance? Are child labor laws a bit more lax down under, or am I missing something here?
This struck me immediately. This was clearly an adult event. I have no problem with parents deciding that their child is mature enough to handle going to an adult event, but it is ridiculous to get upset that someone at the adult event presented material that was offensive because your child was too young to see it.
Of course, I highly question whether Titstare is anything more offensive than this nine year old girl sees on a regular basis. It certainly isn't any more sexualized than the rack of women's magazines that she would be seeing while standing in line at the grocery store with her parents. It certainly isn't any more sexualized than the 8 foot posters in the windows of Victoria Secrets at the mall. And it certainly isn't any more sexualized than the commercials that play on TV either in her own home, or in the many places outside her home that have TVs playing.
This isn't about offensive material being presented to a child. This reeks of the same kind of misandrist behavior that we saw with the Adria Richards situation. A situation where 'sexual jokes are fine if your a woman, but if you have a penis, sexual jokes make you evil'.
MS has back peddled on a number of issues surrounding what they will collect with the Xbox One. When the were called out on privacy concerns, they were slow to respond and vague in their answers. If a cell phone camera were to be abused, it is far less likely to produce a video that can end up on www.realamaturemilfs.com than a camera pointing at your couch that has a motor to point and track movement in a room.
And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. MS crossed lines that offend wives. Whether those wives are rational or not is totally irrelevant. irrationally refusing to allow an Xbox One in their home is just as bad for MS as rationally refusing to allow and Xbox One in the house.
You should argue it out with the ELEM (Eat Less Exercise More) crowd. They say you are wrong, and greasy burgers do not make you any more fat that a diet of strictly tofu and whole grain rice.
Your are actually advocating the it is a good thing that women kidnap children from their fathers and trick other men into raising children that are not their own? You are one sick puppy.
Insurance is useless for those who don't have risk. Paying insurance to cover you against diabetes would be stupid if you could see through a DNA test that you will never get it.
With perfect risk assessment being possible, no insurance company would issue a policy until that assessment was done, and even if they did, once the assessment does get done, anyone that knows they are not at risk, will just cancel their policy once they know they are not at risk.
I find teaching and getting good results to be easy. You do not. Perhaps it is just difficult for you, as I reject the premise that it happens to be some innate superiority on my part that makes it easy for me.
On the first point... You are correct that 2.25% for every patent used would make the XBox impossible. This just highlights a problem with the patent system. A flaw that Microsoft also uses to hurt competition. E.g. the FAT patent. The fact that there are patent wars going on, makes the level of evil in the price hard to tell. War is hell, and unilaterally setting down your weapons isn't always a good idea. I'm not saying that Google is clean here. Just that it is murky.
On the second point... You are correct. Apologists like to make a lot of claims about how a business MUST do this, or MUST do that, when they most certainly do not. Google could have just dropped the royalty fee to whatever they wanted if they chose to. They could not however have killed the lawsuit outright. They were the defendants, so it is not their choice directly.
That is a good point. If the purchased company is evil, then the purchasing company is absorbing evil into itself. The question then becomes... Does the purchaser root out evil in the purchased company and cleans it, or does it allow the evil to continue and thus become corrupted itself? And, how long do we give the purchaser to start showing movement in the direction of a cleansing before we place judgement on them?
I think you are wrong about it being techies that will kill the Xbox One. It is going to be wives. There is no way that an XBox One will ever be in my house. It is irrelevant whether I want one or not. The minute my wife heard about an always on connection and camera, there was no way she was going to allow one in our home. I have heard several of her friends make the same comments. None of the care about consoles. All they care is that there is never an Xbox One brought into their homes.
Out of curiosity, I asked a couple of them if MS's change of policy was going to have any effect on their stance concerning the XBox One, and every one of them were absolutely clear that there was no way that an XBox One would be in their home irrelevant of any policy changes MS made.
If that was the case, society would have collapsed long ago. The vast majority of knowledge that you use on a day to day basis was not taught to you by a professional teacher.
The last one is particularly good in that you can pick any state off of the map, and it will give you a chart that includes both the average wage for all jobs, as well as those for public school teachers.
Someone is lying about how much they make. I'm not saying it is your wife, but if she is making less than an average wage in your state, then some of her peers are making a lot more than she is.
You forget that by your standards 100% of the population makes extensive use of medicare.
If not for medicare,
* Who cares for the grandparents of those school kids?
* Who keeps the old people from spreading disease when they go to the grocery store?
I would say that as a daycare, public schools are a net negative for our society. Throughout any thread that discusses kids, you will read posters bemoaning the lack of parenting. They are all over the comments on this very article. It is no surprise that so many parents have given up on being actual parents to their children. They see themselves as living in an orphanage state. They don't consciously recognize it, but that is how they live their lives. They no longer see themselves as the people who are responsible for raising their children. They see that as the states job. Consider that for 9 months a year, a majority of kids spend more time under the care of the state than they do their biological parents. The fact that you would think it is the states job to feed your kids shows that you are one of these people that has accepted the US as an orphanage state.
As for teaching being complicated and specialized. No. It really isn't. Teaching is easy, and it is so non-specialized that it is almost impossible to interact with other humans without doing it. In fact it is very common in middle and upper class households for the biological parents to spend the first 5 years teaching their children. Right up to the point that they abdicate their parental status to the state. At which time, they no longer see it as their job to teach.
Heck, you were attempting to teach, right there in your post, and I responded right back with some teaching of my own. Not complicated. Not specialized.
OK, I am going to grant you that know how to teach is an important skill set. I was referencing the level of knowledge in the specific subject. That being said, all of these bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, and PhDs are not bring any more skill in the art of teaching to the table than anyone else would bring. Our collective obsession with certifications is creating a real problem in education without bringing benefited to off set them.
Slashdot Mirror
The store can take back the package of almonds and return it to the manufacturer. At the very least, the store can take the product off the shelf. I don't expect Safeway to know every single product they sell. If customers complain that there is a problem with the product, I do expect Safeway to look into it. If they find there is a problem, I expect them to stop selling it.
The only legal recourse is that Apple stops selling Breaking Bad.
You sound like you don't see that as an option.
How do you suppose Apple bypass copyright law? The most Apple can maybe do is have shows list the total number of episodes in the future but they may get resistance from the content holders about this.
This is a good question. It also has an easy answer. Timothy Cook can call up Josh Sapan and tell him that he is creating a problem for them. He can then further explain that if they don't rectify the problem by either refunding the money or supplying the rest of the season, AMC will no longer be welcome to sell their shows in Apple's store.
Apple tells plenty of businesses that they can choose the Apple way or the highway.
Apple really isn't expected to know it before hand. They are expected to refund the money when they find out what happened. Just as I don't expect Costco to know if there is lead pellets in the dried mangos at their store, I do expect them to refund our money when we customers find the lead pellets. It is up to the store to address it with the manufacturer.
If the very public examples you speak of include the Adria Richards situation, then you must have missed the part where she was making dick jokes at the very same conference only she was making them even more publicly than the two men she was trying to shame. The fact is, she was 'slut shaming' them. 'slut shaming' is not right when it happens to women, and it isn't right when it happens to men.
You seem to be confused about the fact that the music industry is most certainly business. It is big business. You can be absolutely sure that if Miley Cyrus were to have walk off the stage in the middle the performance, people would have been calling her 'unprofessional'.
On the other side, you are confused as to the amount of sex involved in the sale of software. The internet (the means of distribution for the software shown at this event) was built on the back of porn. Not just 'I peeked at boobies' kind of apps, but hard core, illegal in some states, illegal to give to children in most states porn.
You also have the nice piece of logic "well someone else did something bad so this bad thing is ok too".
I'm not going to side with the parent poster, but the logic he is trying to employ is the same logic that gets used to show discrimination when it isn't white men. If drivers who are black and speeding get ticketed and drivers who are white get pulled over and given a warning, we would all agree that it was racial discrimination. The fact that white people were speeding does not make it OK for black people to speed, but it would show that white people and black people are being held to different standards, and one has the advantage. As a society we consider that very very bad. By the same token, if men are being lambasted and 'slut shamed' for relatively benign sexual expression, while women can do simulated sex on stage in far more public venues, then there shows the same kind of discrimination.
Those kinds of feminists are few and far between. Pretty much every woman that I have known that actually believes in equal pay for equal work wouldn't call themselves a feminist.
and should have the right to be treated with respect regardless of what they're wearing.
Would you also defend male presenters that got up on stage in nothing but a g-string and assless chaps? I doubt it. Personally, I am happy with women wearing whatever they want, and could not care less if men dressed the same, but the vast majority of 'feminists' take the stance that any kind of dress is always appropriate for women, and that men should remain covered unless swimming. I can tell you that if I showed up at work showing half as much chest as my female peers, someone would be having a conversation with me, and I might get fired for sexual harassment.
All the really smart geek guys are too -- because they're the ones who end up with the smart geek girls. :-)
This comment shows how little you understand what you speak of. This comment basically says that the guys who CLAIM to be feminist are the really smart ones because they tell women what they want to hear so that they can bang them. Your views on what makes someone a 'feminist' is that they pretend to be PC so that they can objectify and manipulate the opposite gender. That is the kind of 'feminism' that so many men are complaining about.
Oddly, in public avenues like these, it almost always appears to come from politically dominant classes, and these hypothetical questions are almost never relevant.
That is simply untrue. For example, in the last big media hoopla about this, it was Adria Richards complaining about men making a joke about 'dongles' after she had, at the exact same event, made a joke about stuffing socks in your pants to make the TSA think they were your dick. The only reason you think that the jokes come predominantly from men is because you are a misandrist.
why the fuck was a 9-year-old in attendance? Are child labor laws a bit more lax down under, or am I missing something here?
This struck me immediately. This was clearly an adult event. I have no problem with parents deciding that their child is mature enough to handle going to an adult event, but it is ridiculous to get upset that someone at the adult event presented material that was offensive because your child was too young to see it.
Of course, I highly question whether Titstare is anything more offensive than this nine year old girl sees on a regular basis. It certainly isn't any more sexualized than the rack of women's magazines that she would be seeing while standing in line at the grocery store with her parents. It certainly isn't any more sexualized than the 8 foot posters in the windows of Victoria Secrets at the mall. And it certainly isn't any more sexualized than the commercials that play on TV either in her own home, or in the many places outside her home that have TVs playing.
This isn't about offensive material being presented to a child. This reeks of the same kind of misandrist behavior that we saw with the Adria Richards situation. A situation where 'sexual jokes are fine if your a woman, but if you have a penis, sexual jokes make you evil'.
MS has back peddled on a number of issues surrounding what they will collect with the Xbox One. When the were called out on privacy concerns, they were slow to respond and vague in their answers. If a cell phone camera were to be abused, it is far less likely to produce a video that can end up on www.realamaturemilfs.com than a camera pointing at your couch that has a motor to point and track movement in a room.
And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. MS crossed lines that offend wives. Whether those wives are rational or not is totally irrelevant. irrationally refusing to allow an Xbox One in their home is just as bad for MS as rationally refusing to allow and Xbox One in the house.
If that is what you think you have proven, I am not surprised that you think teaching is hard.
You should argue it out with the ELEM (Eat Less Exercise More) crowd. They say you are wrong, and greasy burgers do not make you any more fat that a diet of strictly tofu and whole grain rice.
Your are actually advocating the it is a good thing that women kidnap children from their fathers and trick other men into raising children that are not their own? You are one sick puppy.
Insurance is useless for those who don't have risk. Paying insurance to cover you against diabetes would be stupid if you could see through a DNA test that you will never get it.
With perfect risk assessment being possible, no insurance company would issue a policy until that assessment was done, and even if they did, once the assessment does get done, anyone that knows they are not at risk, will just cancel their policy once they know they are not at risk.
I find teaching and getting good results to be easy. You do not. Perhaps it is just difficult for you, as I reject the premise that it happens to be some innate superiority on my part that makes it easy for me.
On the first point... You are correct that 2.25% for every patent used would make the XBox impossible. This just highlights a problem with the patent system. A flaw that Microsoft also uses to hurt competition. E.g. the FAT patent. The fact that there are patent wars going on, makes the level of evil in the price hard to tell. War is hell, and unilaterally setting down your weapons isn't always a good idea. I'm not saying that Google is clean here. Just that it is murky.
On the second point... You are correct. Apologists like to make a lot of claims about how a business MUST do this, or MUST do that, when they most certainly do not. Google could have just dropped the royalty fee to whatever they wanted if they chose to. They could not however have killed the lawsuit outright. They were the defendants, so it is not their choice directly.
That is a good point. If the purchased company is evil, then the purchasing company is absorbing evil into itself. The question then becomes... Does the purchaser root out evil in the purchased company and cleans it, or does it allow the evil to continue and thus become corrupted itself? And, how long do we give the purchaser to start showing movement in the direction of a cleansing before we place judgement on them?
I think you are wrong about it being techies that will kill the Xbox One. It is going to be wives. There is no way that an XBox One will ever be in my house. It is irrelevant whether I want one or not. The minute my wife heard about an always on connection and camera, there was no way she was going to allow one in our home. I have heard several of her friends make the same comments. None of the care about consoles. All they care is that there is never an Xbox One brought into their homes.
Out of curiosity, I asked a couple of them if MS's change of policy was going to have any effect on their stance concerning the XBox One, and every one of them were absolutely clear that there was no way that an XBox One would be in their home irrelevant of any policy changes MS made.
If that was the case, society would have collapsed long ago. The vast majority of knowledge that you use on a day to day basis was not taught to you by a professional teacher.
The HDMI spec does not differentiate text signals.
That bears repeating.
National Education Association: http://www.nea.org/home/54597.htm
National Center for Education Statistics: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_083.asp/
Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrcst.htm
The last one is particularly good in that you can pick any state off of the map, and it will give you a chart that includes both the average wage for all jobs, as well as those for public school teachers.
Someone is lying about how much they make. I'm not saying it is your wife, but if she is making less than an average wage in your state, then some of her peers are making a lot more than she is.
You forget that by your standards 100% of the population makes extensive use of medicare.
If not for medicare,
* Who cares for the grandparents of those school kids?
* Who keeps the old people from spreading disease when they go to the grocery store?
I would say that as a daycare, public schools are a net negative for our society. Throughout any thread that discusses kids, you will read posters bemoaning the lack of parenting. They are all over the comments on this very article. It is no surprise that so many parents have given up on being actual parents to their children. They see themselves as living in an orphanage state. They don't consciously recognize it, but that is how they live their lives. They no longer see themselves as the people who are responsible for raising their children. They see that as the states job. Consider that for 9 months a year, a majority of kids spend more time under the care of the state than they do their biological parents. The fact that you would think it is the states job to feed your kids shows that you are one of these people that has accepted the US as an orphanage state.
As for teaching being complicated and specialized. No. It really isn't. Teaching is easy, and it is so non-specialized that it is almost impossible to interact with other humans without doing it. In fact it is very common in middle and upper class households for the biological parents to spend the first 5 years teaching their children. Right up to the point that they abdicate their parental status to the state. At which time, they no longer see it as their job to teach.
Heck, you were attempting to teach, right there in your post, and I responded right back with some teaching of my own. Not complicated. Not specialized.
OK, I am going to grant you that know how to teach is an important skill set. I was referencing the level of knowledge in the specific subject. That being said, all of these bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, and PhDs are not bring any more skill in the art of teaching to the table than anyone else would bring. Our collective obsession with certifications is creating a real problem in education without bringing benefited to off set them.