CIO magazine also doesn't go so far as to call on Microsoft to club baby seals. Why is the summary reporting on shit that people didn't do?
For that matter, why is the CIO magazine article even included in the summary? Did Twitter just scour the internet for anti-Vista articles and throw them all into one stupid Slashdot submission?
If they were cautious about change then they would not have accepted Vista, which is a change. Accepting the change to Vista would be liberal, not conservative.
So in your limited view of the first amendment, or indeed, free speech in general, to what extent should speech be protected? Do you think that only nice speech should be protected? Only majority speech should be protected, is that your view? Once you start judging who gets free speech and who gets silenced based on mutable moral standards, you run into the impossible issue of whose standards to embrace, and majority groupthink prevails, and the minority is silenced. I hope you don't hold any minority views, because you are advocating that people who do be persecuted for holding them.
A viewpoint cannot physically do anything, it is abstract, not concrete, only people can physically act upon the viewpoints. It is these actions then, which if illegal, should be outlawed, not the viewpoints behind the actions. You cannot legally in America forcefully silence a person because you disagree with their views. Lyle Stuart once said,
"No one needs a First Amendment to write about how cute newborn babies are or to publish a recipe for strawberry shortcake. Nobody needs a First Amendment for innocuous or popular points of view. That's point one. Point two is that the majority-you and I-must always protect the right of a minority-even a minority of one-to express the most outrageous and offensive ideas. Only then is total freedom of expression guaranteed."
What you are suggesting, that is, thoughtcrime, is tantamount to fascism.
Are you serious? Of course you'd have to buy a new ipod to get it. Getting people to buy shit they don't need is half of Apple's market strategy, and the other half is vendor/DRM lock-in. This idea conveniently satisfies both missions.
Like it or not, utilities to break encryption are illegal in the USA
Like hell it is. Breaking encryption is fine. You only run into legal issues when you try to circumvent copy protection measures on copyrighted media (which is still bad) or when you break into somebody's computer in the process.
The notion that Apple has to do this because the record companies force them to is patently untrue. If the record companies did not want DRM-free music, then they would not have agreed to let Apple sell DRM-free music.
The fact of the matter is that Apple likes the vendor lock-in they established between their ipod hardware and itunes software; it is a huge money-maker for them, and they will not willingly give up money anytime soon.
That they can simply blame somebody else for their actions ("B-b-but he made me do it!") and other people believe them is a testament to the gullibility of the general public and their blind hatred of faceless corporations. Does anybody really see a difference between "we do what we want or the record companies attack" and "we do what we want or the terrorists attack"?
Record companies provide a convenient scapegoat for Apple to pass their immoral actions off on, and people just eat their shit up with a smile and a defensive attitude.
Try grabbing a heavy three ring binder by the spine end of it, and then by the open end of it, and tell me which side affords you a better, more secure grip.
Briefcase? Any mac user who owns a macbook air isn't going to keep it in a briefcase. They're going to carry it around in a manila envelope so they can show all their friends how thin it is and how cool it makes them by association.
Yeah, because when I want to watch a DVD on an airplane, the first thought that comes to me is "I should bring a full fledged tower-form factor desktop computer, wireless router, and 50 pound UPS along with me, set up a wireless network on the plane, and watch my movies off the hard drive and optical drive of the desktop". Yeah, that sure is a great justification for the failure that is no optical drive.
Government interference in and regulation of capitalism is a bad thing. If you're jealous that somebody is more successful than you, then that reflects on your character and not theirs.
microsoft is giving a free live arcade game because it costs them virtually nothing. What they should do is indeed extend subscriptions by another month, but that would cost them a lot, and they want to get their users to shut up for a little cost as possible.
Hard drive space. Cowon has 30GB, Archos has over 5 times that. If Cowon put a 160+ gig drive in their hardware, I would be all over that shit, but they never seem to get around to it.
The developers collect the information, and then sell it to advertisers to make a quick, easy buck off of their users.
Apparently selling a commercial version of their software doesn't give them enough money, they have to covertly do this as well.
The key mistake they made here is that they made it opt-out and difficult for an inexperienced user to opt-out.
The correct move would have been to provide a separate page during the install that said in big bold letters,
"WOULD YOU LIKE TO SUBMIT YOUR USAGE, HARDWARE, SYSTEM, AND INSTALLATION STATISTICS REGULARLY TO US FOR OUR FINANCIAL GAIN TO HELP SUPPORT THE PROJECT",
with the default obviously being "NO".
How about comparing it to murder instead of armed robbery, and wondering why you advocate the same punishment for murder and spamming? Do you honestly think spamming and murder are morally equal?
Sounds like somebody's a little angry they were outed for who they really are.
I'll bite, however; what have you accomplished in the way of stopping extraordinary rendition?
Of course, I don't expect you to answer me directly, because the direct answer is nothing. Rather, you will probably answer a question I never asked, or not answer at all.
The announcement was made before the election concluded, it was just posted on Slashdot afterwards. Maybe your correlation is backwards - the evil neo-soviet empire rigged the elections so they could control facebook! Damn putin and his majority approval ratings! If it weren't for that damned "majority" we would have somebody else in power now.
Slashdot Mirror
CIO magazine also doesn't go so far as to call on Microsoft to club baby seals. Why is the summary reporting on shit that people didn't do?
For that matter, why is the CIO magazine article even included in the summary? Did Twitter just scour the internet for anti-Vista articles and throw them all into one stupid Slashdot submission?
If they were cautious about change then they would not have accepted Vista, which is a change. Accepting the change to Vista would be liberal, not conservative.
So in your limited view of the first amendment, or indeed, free speech in general, to what extent should speech be protected? Do you think that only nice speech should be protected? Only majority speech should be protected, is that your view? Once you start judging who gets free speech and who gets silenced based on mutable moral standards, you run into the impossible issue of whose standards to embrace, and majority groupthink prevails, and the minority is silenced. I hope you don't hold any minority views, because you are advocating that people who do be persecuted for holding them.
A viewpoint cannot physically do anything, it is abstract, not concrete, only people can physically act upon the viewpoints. It is these actions then, which if illegal, should be outlawed, not the viewpoints behind the actions. You cannot legally in America forcefully silence a person because you disagree with their views. Lyle Stuart once said,
"No one needs a First Amendment to write about how cute newborn babies are or to publish a recipe for strawberry shortcake. Nobody needs a First Amendment for innocuous or popular points of view. That's point one. Point two is that the majority-you and I-must always protect the right of a minority-even a minority of one-to express the most outrageous and offensive ideas. Only then is total freedom of expression guaranteed."
What you are suggesting, that is, thoughtcrime, is tantamount to fascism.
Wow, I need to find one of these magic stocks that invariably increases in value 10+% every year above the inflation rate.
(and I didn't have to buy a new iPod to get it)
Are you serious? Of course you'd have to buy a new ipod to get it. Getting people to buy shit they don't need is half of Apple's market strategy, and the other half is vendor/DRM lock-in. This idea conveniently satisfies both missions.
Like it or not, utilities to break encryption are illegal in the USA
Like hell it is. Breaking encryption is fine. You only run into legal issues when you try to circumvent copy protection measures on copyrighted media (which is still bad) or when you break into somebody's computer in the process.
The notion that Apple has to do this because the record companies force them to is patently untrue. If the record companies did not want DRM-free music, then they would not have agreed to let Apple sell DRM-free music.
The fact of the matter is that Apple likes the vendor lock-in they established between their ipod hardware and itunes software; it is a huge money-maker for them, and they will not willingly give up money anytime soon.
That they can simply blame somebody else for their actions ("B-b-but he made me do it!") and other people believe them is a testament to the gullibility of the general public and their blind hatred of faceless corporations. Does anybody really see a difference between "we do what we want or the record companies attack" and "we do what we want or the terrorists attack"?
Record companies provide a convenient scapegoat for Apple to pass their immoral actions off on, and people just eat their shit up with a smile and a defensive attitude.
Last I checked, there aren't any oil wells in America owned by Iraqi businesses that the United States subsequently seized and nationalized.
Try grabbing a heavy three ring binder by the spine end of it, and then by the open end of it, and tell me which side affords you a better, more secure grip.
Briefcase? Any mac user who owns a macbook air isn't going to keep it in a briefcase. They're going to carry it around in a manila envelope so they can show all their friends how thin it is and how cool it makes them by association.
Yeah, because when I want to watch a DVD on an airplane, the first thought that comes to me is "I should bring a full fledged tower-form factor desktop computer, wireless router, and 50 pound UPS along with me, set up a wireless network on the plane, and watch my movies off the hard drive and optical drive of the desktop". Yeah, that sure is a great justification for the failure that is no optical drive.
Not.
Government interference in and regulation of capitalism is a bad thing. If you're jealous that somebody is more successful than you, then that reflects on your character and not theirs.
The environment is a federal issue, not a state issue. States should not be able to arbitrarily set limitations on what their citizens can do.
The immediate diagnosis of the crash at the time it happened was that all the electronics cut off, and people are just now learning it?
microsoft is giving a free live arcade game because it costs them virtually nothing. What they should do is indeed extend subscriptions by another month, but that would cost them a lot, and they want to get their users to shut up for a little cost as possible.
Hard drive space. Cowon has 30GB, Archos has over 5 times that. If Cowon put a 160+ gig drive in their hardware, I would be all over that shit, but they never seem to get around to it.
The Archos 605 is 160 gigabytes, not 30, and it supports USB host mode just like your Nokia.
The Archos 605 is 160 gigabytes.
The Archos 605 WiFi is 160 GB. Moreover, it can also access files shared from a PC over the network.
The developers collect the information, and then sell it to advertisers to make a quick, easy buck off of their users.
Apparently selling a commercial version of their software doesn't give them enough money, they have to covertly do this as well.
The key mistake they made here is that they made it opt-out and difficult for an inexperienced user to opt-out.
The correct move would have been to provide a separate page during the install that said in big bold letters,
"WOULD YOU LIKE TO SUBMIT YOUR USAGE, HARDWARE, SYSTEM, AND INSTALLATION STATISTICS REGULARLY TO US FOR OUR FINANCIAL GAIN TO HELP SUPPORT THE PROJECT",
with the default obviously being "NO".
How about comparing it to murder instead of armed robbery, and wondering why you advocate the same punishment for murder and spamming? Do you honestly think spamming and murder are morally equal?
Sounds like somebody's a little angry they were outed for who they really are.
I'll bite, however; what have you accomplished in the way of stopping extraordinary rendition?
Of course, I don't expect you to answer me directly, because the direct answer is nothing. Rather, you will probably answer a question I never asked, or not answer at all.
The announcement was made before the election concluded, it was just posted on Slashdot afterwards. Maybe your correlation is backwards - the evil neo-soviet empire rigged the elections so they could control facebook! Damn putin and his majority approval ratings! If it weren't for that damned "majority" we would have somebody else in power now.
And your government lets it all happen, whilst you stand idly by and do nothing but post angry replies on internet forums.