I wonder why the results were removed, as opposed to the cached copies of the websites. As far as I knew, the DMCA could only be used to force a host to remove infringing content from their website. A link is not infringing content as far as I know, unless they are arguing that those links/titles used Kazaa's trademark; but that's not what the letter says.
Does the DMCA really require the removal of links pointing to infringing content?
Your suggestion assumes the perceived threat Tai Chi to those in power is equal in both China and the United States.
To get a better sense of the moral equivalence of these two countries, I suggest dressing in Muslim garb and reading aloud from the Koran in both the Washington Mall and Tianamen Square. Such an action is more likely to be considered a threat to those in power in both nations (be they dictators or an irrational majority), and so the results should be both interesting and relevant.
Who the hell is "we"? Americans are not one homogenous group. In fact, we're one of, if not the most diverse nation ethnically, religiously, politically, philosophically, and every other -ly on the planet.
Religion is the largest source of objection to freedom of expression, regrettably enough.
In the same way that weapons are the largest source of murders, right? Religion is many things, and that some use it as a tool of oppression does not necessarily mean religion itself is the source of the oppression.
The largest danger to freedom of expression is people in power who stand to lose power, whether they are popes or presidents. Religion is sometimes used. So is patriotism. So is the public good. So is individual safety. So is fear.
It always seems to be Southern Baptists out claiming that Harry Potter promotes witchcraft and needs to be removed from school libraries...
Ah. So Southern Baptists claiming that Harry Potter promotes witchcraft are representative not only of all Southern Baptists, but also all Christians.
Back when Galileo started talking about the rest of the universe perhaps not circling around the Earth, Christianity worked very quickly to stifle him and keep him under house arrest until he died.
Christianity was used to stifle him by people in power.
If I use a hammer to oppress people, does that mean the hammer did the oppressing?
The folks living large at the top of the religious food chain didn't try to just *defend* their ideas -- they knew that they were wrong, and that they were only going to win by suppressing competing ideas.
Finally. Corrupt people in positions of power are the problem. Blind faith in religious organizations are the problem. Religion is not the problem.
And then when Martin Luther translated the Bible into a language that commoners could read...he nearly was killed by good ol' Christianity. There was the risk that someone would have to actually *defend* ideas, instead of being able to just indoctrinate kids at a young age ("If you don't do what the priest says and give him money each week, you're going to BURN IN HELL FOREVER").
Martin Luther was a Christian. Do you think Martin Luther would blame Christianity or the power structure of the Catholic Church?
Christianity is steadily dying out in the United States. Christianity now claims 10% less of the population than it did a decade ago. Still a long way to go, though.
The publication you cite does show a 10% decrease in the percentage of Christians among the total population.
However, these statistics hardly support your claim that "Christianity is steadily dying out". According to the publication, self-described Christians actually increased in number by 5% and are still a whopping 76% of the total population.
If they posted the programming with advertisements intact, eventually they may be able to ask more for advertising, or treat it as a separate advertising space altogether. Plus, the torrents for their shows are going to be out there anyway. This way there is an official torrent that most people are going to want because: they can expect a certain level of quality and there is no risk to them. AND it also increases awareness and availability of their show.
Heck, if they did this I might even watch some of their shows.
You responded to my tongue-in-cheek trite response to your trite response, but completely ignored the substance of my post. I'm not surprised, because you did the same thing to the OP.
In any case, my odds of being "affected" by closet monsters is pretty high, too, since I have a two year old child. Oddly, I'm not afraid of either one.
Do you believe it is okay to use the fear of terrorism to coerce people into agreeing to or doing things that have dubious or no relation to terrorism?
The terrorists killing our soldiers in Iraq are affecting us as well. They're succeeding in swaying American popular support away from winning the war in Iraq -- not that I'm saying we should have gone there in the first place.
And if they were enemy soldiers this would be different how? That has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with war. (We used to call those folks "partisans".) If the US was invaded, how do you think the occupying nation would refer to American citizen soldiers or foreign mercenaries?
BTW, regarding the sibling thread: You brought up the statistics, the onus is on you to cite the source.
I suspect this is just a ploy by the *AA to have the police go after children and grandmothers so they don't get the bad PR when they do it themselves.
Next will be charging the parents when this "crime" is committed by their children. That way they can go after children without going after the children.
but there are few things more irratating & detremental to productivity than an angry/whiny co-worker.
One thing more detrimental is an angry/whiny co-worker (or employee) who is pretending to be cheerful.
This really just sounds like management doesn't have the skill or the emotional maturity to actually deal with the problem, so instead, they sweep it under the rug.
If an employee is angry/whiny, there is a reason. Maybe that reason is internal to the employee. Maybe that reason is the result of something in the work environment. Force the employee to pretend to be happy, and the employee will probably more unhappy. Then you have an employee not working to the best of their ability, who may even be acting out passive aggressively. That attitude can spread just as quickly as overt angry/whiny behavior, and can be even worse to tolerate because it is harder to pin down.
You are receiving this notice because you were a paid Netflix member before January 15, 2005. Under a proposed class action settlement, you may be eligible to receive a free benefit from Netflix.
A class action lawsuit entitled Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. was filed in San Francisco Superior Court (case number CGC-04-434884) on September 23, 2004. The lawsuit alleges that Netflix failed to provide "unlimited" DVD rentals and "one day delivery" as promised in its marketing materials. Netflix has denied any wrongdoing or liability. The parties have reached a settlement that they believe is in the best interests of the company and its subscribers.
Netflix will provide eligible subscribers with the benefit described below, if the settlement is approved by the Court.
* Current Netflix Members: If you enrolled in a paid membership before January 15, 2005 and were a member on October 19, 2005, you are eligible to receive a free one-month upgrade in service level. For example, if you are on the 3 DVDs at-a-time program, you will be upgraded to the 4 DVDs at-a-time program for one month. There will be no price increase during the upgraded month. (If you cancel your membership after October 19, 2005 and before you receive the upgrade, you will have to rejoin to get the upgrade.)
* Former Netflix Members: If you enrolled in a paid membership before January 15, 2005 but were not a member on October 19, 2005, you are eligible to receive a free one-month Netflix membership on your choice of the 1, 2 or 3 DVDs at-a-time unlimited program. (If you rejoin after October 19, 2005 but before you receive the free one-month membership, you will receive a credit for the free month when it becomes available.)
These benefits will be provided after the Effective Date as defined in the Settlement Agreement. Your eligibility for the benefits is based on your membership status as of October 19, 2005. The full Settlement Agreement is available for review at www.netflixsettlement.com.
You have four options to respond to the proposed settlement. You have until December 28, 2005 to make your decision:
Option 1. Sign Up For The Benefit As Part Of The Settlement To receive the benefit, you must complete the online registration process no later than February 17, 2006, at www.netflixsettlement.com. By signing up for the benefit, you waive your right to bring a separate lawsuit against Netflix concerning the Released Claims (as defined in the Settlement Agreement found at www.netflixsettlement.com).
Option 2. Do Nothing If you do not wish to receive the benefit, do nothing. You will not receive the benefit but will remain a Class Member. You therefore waive your right to bring a separate lawsuit against Netflix concerning the Released Claims.
Option 3. Exclude Yourself From the Class To exclude yourself from the class, you must mail a letter by December 28, 2005. By excluding yourself, you preserve your right to bring a lawsuit against Netflix concerning the Released Claims. However, you will not get the benefit described above.
Option 4. Make An Objection To The Settlement In Court To object to the settlement, you must file legal papers in the San Francisco Superior Court by January 5, 2006.
To receive your benefit, you must register by February 17, 2006 as described above in Option 1. You will not receive any other reminders to register for the benefit. If you have registered for the benefit and your eligibility is confirmed, then you will be provided additional information by email following the Effective Date as defined in the Settlement Agreement.
After the benefit period ends, the new or upgraded level of service will continue automatically (following an email reminder) and you will be billed accordingly, unless you cancel or modify your subscription. You can cancel or modify your subscription at any time.
In addition, if the settlement is approved by the Court, Netflix will modify portions of its T
In my case I started using Linux because the only free apps I could find for Windows (years ago) were 100% crap pieces of shareware. Most of the free open source stuff was for Linux. I'm sure there were a lot of people who shared my experience and probably think that free software was a selling point for Linux until it become so readily available on Windows.
I personally think your experience will be more common. Give people a little taste of geekdom and free stuff, and they might not be so afraid of trying something "weird and scary" like Linux.
Giving? Since the price of the Mac Mini is going to be $499 even after the old inventory is moved out, I don't see how you can say Apple is giving anyone anything. Regardless of when you buy, if you get one of the upgraded units you will have paid $499. I don't see any "giving" in that scenario.
And that's the point. The existence of the upgraded models is the trigger for the devaluation of the older models. By "hiding" the upgraded models, they can keep the older models from going down in price.
Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo all drop the prices of their game consoles over time. That doesn't mean they ripped off all their previous customers when they do it. People know that computers get faster, existing products go down in value. Of course people are getting less value for their money if they buy right before a price break. It's happened to me and it sucks, but I still hardly consider what Apple is doing a bad thing. (and yes, I know that you didn't specifically say it was)
Right. Buying right before the price break is bad for the consumer. You have experienced this. In this case, Apple has done away with the price break altogether, and that's the problem as I see it.
Spec B does cost the same as Spec A. They are both $499. One is just labeled incorrectly and not advertised.
"if B was for sale, then people just wouldn't buy A"
This is exactly my point. To "sell" (read: advertise) both Specs, they would have to lower the price of A. By not advertising B, Apple artificially inflates the price of A.
The price of Spec A is inflated, because its value is reduced by the existence of and in comparison to Spec B. If Spec B costs $499 and Spec A costs $499, and Spec B is more valuable than Spec A, then Spec A gives you less value per dollar.
Apple _is_ artificially inflating the price. If Apple had advertised the upgrades, it would probably have had to drop the price of the Spec A units or no one would buy them. Instead, Apple is charging for Spec A based on the value of Spec B, rather than on the value of Spec A. Paying for Spec A under these conditions is a losing proposition for the consumer.
Regardless of what they are advertising: Spec B is worth more than Spec A. Spec A is worth less today than Spec A was worth yesterday.
By selling both Spec B and Spec A at the existing Spec A price, they are artificially maintaining the price of Spec A, but they are not making up for lost value on any Spec A units.
Put it another way:
If a Mac Mini Upgrade is worth $499, and a Mac Mini Upgrade has more value than a Mac Mini, if you pay $499 for a Mac Mini (now), you are getting less value for your money.
The _only_ way you can logically disagree with my argument is if you believe that the Mac Mini Upgrade is worth the same as the Mac Mini.
The value of spec 'A' decreases over time. Apple is specifically using the value of spec 'B' to artificially inflate the price of spec 'A' without increasing its value.
I am willing to spend $a_value for 'A' and $b_value for 'B'. I am not willing to spend $b_value for 'A' with a _chance_ of spec 'B'. Are you?
The analogy is bad because, while you know and expect the cracker jack prizes to be randomized, the cracker jack prizes all have roughly the same value. A better analogy would be you and a friend opening up boxes of cracker jacks, and you find that your friend's box has two more ounces of cracker jacks than yours.
Of course, the analogy still still sucks because we're comparing a $1 box of a consumable good to a $500 piece of hardware. Most people can consider a box of Cracker Jacks an acceptable loss. Not so with a Mac Mini. Who wouldn't feel ripped off paying the same price as the upgraded hardware for an inferior model?
I know I would, and so I won't be buying a Mac Mini until after this is over. But I'd feel just as ripped off if I bought one and found out about this after the fact. I may not even buy one in the future, because I have no assurances that they won't pull this crap again.
What I would do, regardless of whether my game was good or not, is charge a high price for a month-to-month subscriptions, and offer a 6-month- or year-long "contract" at a reduced rate. That way I would be recouping my costs the same way I would if I was selling the game, while giving those who want to invest further an incentive to do so.
This is one of the shortest articles in/. history and no one seems to be able to read it.
You are right that the article is important, but what you've posted has nothing to do with the article. The article is important because it lets people - who may or may not be immunized - know that they may have been exposed to the virus. That's it.
An outbreak of measles is incredibly rare in the "west". Can someone please explain to me how one of the U.S.A.s most important companies just suffered an outbreak?
What "outbreak"? According to the article, there is one confirmed case of measles in "an adult", who may or may not work for the company.
Do you Americans not immunise your children?
Even if 100% of American children are immunized, not all Americans are born and grow up in America, and not everyone in America is an American.
Besides, the vaccine is not 100% effective.
According to the Seattle Times, the adult picked up the measles in France, another western country.
On the one hand you are saying ADHD and PTSD are "normal", but on the other hand you completely dismiss how others cope with these extreme experiences.
PTSD is also a natural human reaction to unbelievable emotional stress. We all have bad times, and dealing with them unaided is healthy practice and should be encouraged. However, one must have empathy for people who have killed other people in battle or watched their best friends get picked off by an unseen sniper. These are not normal experiences, and it is unsurprising that they can have lasting adverse affects on a person's ability to lead a normal life after service.
Sir, would you advise a cancer patient to deal with it unaided?
My wife suffered PTSD when her ex-husband almost died. She received therapy and no longer suffers from PTSD. She and I are owners/board members of a non-profit organization specializing in offering tools for dealing with mental health issues. Many of our communinty and staff members suffer from PTSD along with other disorders.
PTSD is a debilitating disorder that most people cannot overcome unaided.
I don't know what "bad times" the parent has been through in his own life, but I'm going to venture a guess that he is dramatically over-exagerrating his own minor trials.
You admit that you don't know, but you still dismiss his claims. The fact is, everyone deals with different circumstances differently. We all have different strengths and weaknesses.
If a soldier has no difficulty dealing with such experiences, or if a rape victim thinks his/her rape was "no big deal" then in my opinion, there is something seriously wrong with those people.
Again, everyone copes in different ways. What is "seriously wrong" is that these people have to have these experiences in the first place. How they cope with those experiences is not "wrong". It may be harmful, ineffective, unusual, or difficult to understand. It may be indicative of some other type of disorder or illness, but it does not mean there is anything "seriously wrong" with them.
Where does it say anywhere that the "haves" are at fault? Maybe this is implied by the fact that their tax money will be used to build it. I don't think that implies fault, though.
Is a $400 Dell the only option for low income families? No. Computers are available for much less. I've been the recipient of a free computers, and my income isn't even low.
Is a dial-up connection the equivalent of a broadband wifi connection? No. Broadband is faster and doesn't tie up their phone line - assuming they have a phone line. Broadband provides more opportunity. Ever download a 600 MB linux ISO at 56k? How about a several megabyte PDF for online classes?
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder why the results were removed, as opposed to the cached copies of the websites. As far as I knew, the DMCA could only be used to force a host to remove infringing content from their website. A link is not infringing content as far as I know, unless they are arguing that those links/titles used Kazaa's trademark; but that's not what the letter says.
Does the DMCA really require the removal of links pointing to infringing content?
Your suggestion assumes the perceived threat Tai Chi to those in power is equal in both China and the United States.
To get a better sense of the moral equivalence of these two countries, I suggest dressing in Muslim garb and reading aloud from the Koran in both the Washington Mall and Tianamen Square. Such an action is more likely to be considered a threat to those in power in both nations (be they dictators or an irrational majority), and so the results should be both interesting and relevant.
if you could actualy eat the usb drive (the shrimp not the thumb) ones.
You're responding to The Amazing Fishboy, you insensitive clod!
We actually don't.
Who the hell is "we"? Americans are not one homogenous group. In fact, we're one of, if not the most diverse nation ethnically, religiously, politically, philosophically, and every other -ly on the planet.
Religion is the largest source of objection to freedom of expression, regrettably enough.
In the same way that weapons are the largest source of murders, right? Religion is many things, and that some use it as a tool of oppression does not necessarily mean religion itself is the source of the oppression.
The largest danger to freedom of expression is people in power who stand to lose power, whether they are popes or presidents. Religion is sometimes used. So is patriotism. So is the public good. So is individual safety. So is fear.
It always seems to be Southern Baptists out claiming that Harry Potter promotes witchcraft and needs to be removed from school libraries...
Ah. So Southern Baptists claiming that Harry Potter promotes witchcraft are representative not only of all Southern Baptists, but also all Christians.
Back when Galileo started talking about the rest of the universe perhaps not circling around the Earth, Christianity worked very quickly to stifle him and keep him under house arrest until he died.
Christianity was used to stifle him by people in power.
If I use a hammer to oppress people, does that mean the hammer did the oppressing?
The folks living large at the top of the religious food chain didn't try to just *defend* their ideas -- they knew that they were wrong, and that they were only going to win by suppressing competing ideas.
Finally. Corrupt people in positions of power are the problem. Blind faith in religious organizations are the problem. Religion is not the problem.
And then when Martin Luther translated the Bible into a language that commoners could read...he nearly was killed by good ol' Christianity. There was the risk that someone would have to actually *defend* ideas, instead of being able to just indoctrinate kids at a young age ("If you don't do what the priest says and give him money each week, you're going to BURN IN HELL FOREVER").
Martin Luther was a Christian. Do you think Martin Luther would blame Christianity or the power structure of the Catholic Church?
Christianity is steadily dying out in the United States. Christianity now claims 10% less of the population than it did a decade ago. Still a long way to go, though.
The publication you cite does show a 10% decrease in the percentage of Christians among the total population.
However, these statistics hardly support your claim that "Christianity is steadily dying out". According to the publication, self-described Christians actually increased in number by 5% and are still a whopping 76% of the total population.
What happens when you put a Sony Music CD into a Diebold machine?
Both Diebold and Sony refuse to admit anything is wrong.
Why not their television programming?
If they posted the programming with advertisements intact, eventually they may be able to ask more for advertising, or treat it as a separate advertising space altogether. Plus, the torrents for their shows are going to be out there anyway. This way there is an official torrent that most people are going to want because: they can expect a certain level of quality and there is no risk to them. AND it also increases awareness and availability of their show.
Heck, if they did this I might even watch some of their shows.
You responded to my tongue-in-cheek trite response to your trite response, but completely ignored the substance of my post. I'm not surprised, because you did the same thing to the OP.
In any case, my odds of being "affected" by closet monsters is pretty high, too, since I have a two year old child. Oddly, I'm not afraid of either one.
Do you believe it is okay to use the fear of terrorism to coerce people into agreeing to or doing things that have dubious or no relation to terrorism?
The terrorists killing our soldiers in Iraq are affecting us as well. They're succeeding in swaying American popular support away from winning the war in Iraq -- not that I'm saying we should have gone there in the first place.
And if they were enemy soldiers this would be different how? That has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with war. (We used to call those folks "partisans".) If the US was invaded, how do you think the occupying nation would refer to American citizen soldiers or foreign mercenaries?
BTW, regarding the sibling thread: You brought up the statistics, the onus is on you to cite the source.
So we should see the threat of terrorism everywhere? So we should use the fear of terrorism as a motivating factor in clearly unrelated areas?
We can all be trite, you know: I'm nearly as likely to be killed by a closet monster as I am to be killed by international terrorism.
I suspect this is just a ploy by the *AA to have the police go after children and grandmothers so they don't get the bad PR when they do it themselves.
Next will be charging the parents when this "crime" is committed by their children. That way they can go after children without going after the children.
Well, duh.
The discrepancy has to do with the elasticity of His Noodly Appendage.
but there are few things more irratating & detremental to productivity than an angry/whiny co-worker.
One thing more detrimental is an angry/whiny co-worker (or employee) who is pretending to be cheerful.
This really just sounds like management doesn't have the skill or the emotional maturity to actually deal with the problem, so instead, they sweep it under the rug.
If an employee is angry/whiny, there is a reason. Maybe that reason is internal to the employee. Maybe that reason is the result of something in the work environment. Force the employee to pretend to be happy, and the employee will probably more unhappy. Then you have an employee not working to the best of their ability, who may even be acting out passive aggressively. That attitude can spread just as quickly as overt angry/whiny behavior, and can be even worse to tolerate because it is harder to pin down.
You are receiving this notice because you were a paid Netflix member before January 15, 2005. Under a proposed class action settlement, you may be eligible to receive a free benefit from Netflix.
A class action lawsuit entitled Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. was filed in San Francisco Superior Court (case number CGC-04-434884) on September 23, 2004. The lawsuit alleges that Netflix failed to provide "unlimited" DVD rentals and "one day delivery" as promised in its marketing materials. Netflix has denied any wrongdoing or liability. The parties have reached a settlement that they believe is in the best interests of the company and its subscribers.
Netflix will provide eligible subscribers with the benefit described below, if the settlement is approved by the Court.
* Current Netflix Members: If you enrolled in a paid membership before January 15, 2005 and were a member on October 19, 2005, you are eligible to receive a free one-month upgrade in service level. For example, if you are on the 3 DVDs at-a-time program, you will be upgraded to the 4 DVDs at-a-time program for one month. There will be no price increase during the upgraded month. (If you cancel your membership after October 19, 2005 and before you receive the upgrade, you will have to rejoin to get the upgrade.)
* Former Netflix Members: If you enrolled in a paid membership before January 15, 2005 but were not a member on October 19, 2005, you are eligible to receive a free one-month Netflix membership on your choice of the 1, 2 or 3 DVDs at-a-time unlimited program. (If you rejoin after October 19, 2005 but before you receive the free one-month membership, you will receive a credit for the free month when it becomes available.)
These benefits will be provided after the Effective Date as defined in the Settlement Agreement. Your eligibility for the benefits is based on your membership status as of October 19, 2005. The full Settlement Agreement is available for review at www.netflixsettlement.com.
You have four options to respond to the proposed settlement. You have until December 28, 2005 to make your decision:
Option 1. Sign Up For The Benefit As Part Of The Settlement
To receive the benefit, you must complete the online registration process no later than February 17, 2006, at www.netflixsettlement.com. By signing up for the benefit, you waive your right to bring a separate lawsuit against Netflix concerning the Released Claims (as defined in the Settlement Agreement found at www.netflixsettlement.com).
Option 2. Do Nothing
If you do not wish to receive the benefit, do nothing. You will not receive the benefit but will remain a Class Member. You therefore waive your right to bring a separate lawsuit against Netflix concerning the Released Claims.
Option 3. Exclude Yourself From the Class
To exclude yourself from the class, you must mail a letter by December 28, 2005. By excluding yourself, you preserve your right to bring a lawsuit against Netflix concerning the Released Claims. However, you will not get the benefit described above.
Option 4. Make An Objection To The Settlement In Court
To object to the settlement, you must file legal papers in the San Francisco Superior Court by January 5, 2006.
To receive your benefit, you must register by February 17, 2006 as described above in Option 1. You will not receive any other reminders to register for the benefit. If you have registered for the benefit and your eligibility is confirmed, then you will be provided additional information by email following the Effective Date as defined in the Settlement Agreement.
After the benefit period ends, the new or upgraded level of service will continue automatically (following an email reminder) and you will be billed accordingly, unless you cancel or modify your subscription. You can cancel or modify your subscription at any time.
In addition, if the settlement is approved by the Court, Netflix will modify portions of its T
In my case I started using Linux because the only free apps I could find for Windows (years ago) were 100% crap pieces of shareware. Most of the free open source stuff was for Linux. I'm sure there were a lot of people who shared my experience and probably think that free software was a selling point for Linux until it become so readily available on Windows.
I personally think your experience will be more common. Give people a little taste of geekdom and free stuff, and they might not be so afraid of trying something "weird and scary" like Linux.
Giving? Since the price of the Mac Mini is going to be $499 even after the old inventory is moved out, I don't see how you can say Apple is giving anyone anything. Regardless of when you buy, if you get one of the upgraded units you will have paid $499. I don't see any "giving" in that scenario.
And that's the point. The existence of the upgraded models is the trigger for the devaluation of the older models. By "hiding" the upgraded models, they can keep the older models from going down in price.
Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo all drop the prices of their game consoles over time. That doesn't mean they ripped off all their previous customers when they do it. People know that computers get faster, existing products go down in value. Of course people are getting less value for their money if they buy right before a price break. It's happened to me and it sucks, but I still hardly consider what Apple is doing a bad thing. (and yes, I know that you didn't specifically say it was)
Right. Buying right before the price break is bad for the consumer. You have experienced this. In this case, Apple has done away with the price break altogether, and that's the problem as I see it.
Spec B does cost the same as Spec A. They are both $499. One is just labeled incorrectly and not advertised.
"if B was for sale, then people just wouldn't buy A"
This is exactly my point. To "sell" (read: advertise) both Specs, they would have to lower the price of A. By not advertising B, Apple artificially inflates the price of A.
The price of Spec A is inflated, because its value is reduced by the existence of and in comparison to Spec B. If Spec B costs $499 and Spec A costs $499, and Spec B is more valuable than Spec A, then Spec A gives you less value per dollar.
Apple _is_ artificially inflating the price. If Apple had advertised the upgrades, it would probably have had to drop the price of the Spec A units or no one would buy them. Instead, Apple is charging for Spec A based on the value of Spec B, rather than on the value of Spec A. Paying for Spec A under these conditions is a losing proposition for the consumer.
Regardless of what they are advertising:
Spec B is worth more than Spec A.
Spec A is worth less today than Spec A was worth yesterday.
By selling both Spec B and Spec A at the existing Spec A price, they are artificially maintaining the price of Spec A, but they are not making up for lost value on any Spec A units.
Put it another way:
If a Mac Mini Upgrade is worth $499, and a Mac Mini Upgrade has more value than a Mac Mini, if you pay $499 for a Mac Mini (now), you are getting less value for your money.
The _only_ way you can logically disagree with my argument is if you believe that the Mac Mini Upgrade is worth the same as the Mac Mini.
No, it is a rip off.
The value of spec 'A' decreases over time. Apple is specifically using the value of spec 'B' to artificially inflate the price of spec 'A' without increasing its value.
I am willing to spend $a_value for 'A' and $b_value for 'B'. I am not willing to spend $b_value for 'A' with a _chance_ of spec 'B'. Are you?
The analogy is bad because, while you know and expect the cracker jack prizes to be randomized, the cracker jack prizes all have roughly the same value. A better analogy would be you and a friend opening up boxes of cracker jacks, and you find that your friend's box has two more ounces of cracker jacks than yours.
Of course, the analogy still still sucks because we're comparing a $1 box of a consumable good to a $500 piece of hardware. Most people can consider a box of Cracker Jacks an acceptable loss. Not so with a Mac Mini. Who wouldn't feel ripped off paying the same price as the upgraded hardware for an inferior model?
I know I would, and so I won't be buying a Mac Mini until after this is over. But I'd feel just as ripped off if I bought one and found out about this after the fact. I may not even buy one in the future, because I have no assurances that they won't pull this crap again.
No kidding. I never want to be at any bar where the bartender is so far away that radio is reqired to get refills. How big are these bars in Germany?
I doubt it will work that way.
What I would do, regardless of whether my game was good or not, is charge a high price for a month-to-month subscriptions, and offer a 6-month- or year-long "contract" at a reduced rate. That way I would be recouping my costs the same way I would if I was selling the game, while giving those who want to invest further an incentive to do so.
This is one of the shortest articles in /. history and no one seems to be able to read it.
You are right that the article is important, but what you've posted has nothing to do with the article. The article is important because it lets people - who may or may not be immunized - know that they may have been exposed to the virus. That's it.
An outbreak of measles is incredibly rare in the "west". Can someone please explain to me how one of the U.S.A.s most important companies just suffered an outbreak?
What "outbreak"? According to the article, there is one confirmed case of measles in "an adult", who may or may not work for the company.
Do you Americans not immunise your children?
Even if 100% of American children are immunized, not all Americans are born and grow up in America, and not everyone in America is an American.
Besides, the vaccine is not 100% effective.
According to the Seattle Times, the adult picked up the measles in France, another western country.
On the one hand you are saying ADHD and PTSD are "normal", but on the other hand you completely dismiss how others cope with these extreme experiences.
PTSD is also a natural human reaction to unbelievable emotional stress. We all have bad times, and dealing with them unaided is healthy practice and should be encouraged. However, one must have empathy for people who have killed other people in battle or watched their best friends get picked off by an unseen sniper. These are not normal experiences, and it is unsurprising that they can have lasting adverse affects on a person's ability to lead a normal life after service.
Sir, would you advise a cancer patient to deal with it unaided?
My wife suffered PTSD when her ex-husband almost died. She received therapy and no longer suffers from PTSD. She and I are owners/board members of a non-profit organization specializing in offering tools for dealing with mental health issues. Many of our communinty and staff members suffer from PTSD along with other disorders.
PTSD is a debilitating disorder that most people cannot overcome unaided.
You can check out the DSM-IV criteria for PTSD here: http://www.mental-health-today.com/ptsd/dsm.htm
I don't know what "bad times" the parent has been through in his own life, but I'm going to venture a guess that he is dramatically over-exagerrating his own minor trials.
You admit that you don't know, but you still dismiss his claims. The fact is, everyone deals with different circumstances differently. We all have different strengths and weaknesses.
If a soldier has no difficulty dealing with such experiences, or if a rape victim thinks his/her rape was "no big deal" then in my opinion, there is something seriously wrong with those people.
Again, everyone copes in different ways. What is "seriously wrong" is that these people have to have these experiences in the first place. How they cope with those experiences is not "wrong". It may be harmful, ineffective, unusual, or difficult to understand. It may be indicative of some other type of disorder or illness, but it does not mean there is anything "seriously wrong" with them.
The guy who brought gay marriage to San Francisco needs free wifi to get re-elected?
His fate has already been decided one way or the other.
Where does it say anywhere that the "haves" are at fault? Maybe this is implied by the fact that their tax money will be used to build it. I don't think that implies fault, though.
Is a $400 Dell the only option for low income families? No. Computers are available for much less. I've been the recipient of a free computers, and my income isn't even low.
Is a dial-up connection the equivalent of a broadband wifi connection? No. Broadband is faster and doesn't tie up their phone line - assuming they have a phone line. Broadband provides more opportunity. Ever download a 600 MB linux ISO at 56k? How about a several megabyte PDF for online classes?