In the early days headphones sat on the side of your head and let in other noise. However, with the IPod ear buds fit 100% percent into your ear.
No, that would be the Apple In-Ear 'phones. The earbuds don't even come close to fitting 100% in the ear (which is why I bought some in-ear so that I could turn the volume DOWN and still hear the music).
By the way, no one can own music. You can own an object, like a CD or if you're a record company, the master. But music is not property and you can't own it. You can hold a copyright, but that's it. Music belongs to the world. That's sanity. That's how it works.
I wish Apple had tried to patent the ministore, because then we'd have had a million posts about how it's the simplest and most obvious feature ever instead of the insane FUD.
Damn, and I've just used up my mod points.
*Doffs cap*
Yes you can get both (although the UK online store has CoD listed as "Currently unavailable" - an expansion pack is in stock though, so I assume it is just sold out).
Imagine a world where food can be made in an inexpensive solar powered replicator but people still starve because the software used by these devices is "protected" by copyright and DRM.
Or imagine a world where people don't leap head first into the slippery slope fallacy.
'online piracy, CD burning, high prices and competition for consumer dollars from videogames and DVDs'
I like the way the article slips 'high prices' into the middle of the list hoping we won't notice. Heads up fellas: the first two you list are at least partially function of high prices.
Namely, groupthink, conformism, the silencing of heretics, and the promotion of biased agendas.
Wikipedia already has all of these - plus the lack of a strong disciplinary system, meaning good editors get sick of harassment (or simply the lack of enforcement of the incivility policy )and simply leave.
There is a reasonable tradition of spoof shows on UK telly. One, back in the 70s called Alternative Three was a fake investigative documentary. It purported to expose top secret manned missions to Mars, which discovered advanced lifeforms there. Another is Ghostwatch (Google it, 'cos there is only so much trauma I can take).
Taking it the next step and faking an entire 'reality' show has a certain attraction, I suppose - except that it isn't really that well done. It just feels horribly scripted to me (something the other two I mention largely avoided).
Still doesn't address the question. Providing a source does not make a falsehood true. Repeating a libel is still a libel. Why should the burden of proof be on the 'accused'?
Slashdot Mirror
It is not a UK case, it is an EU case.
Harpto, Grouchto and Chicto (you've already got zepto). And Gummto, I suppose.
Actually the "Use them together use them in peace" was only in the movie. Peter Hyams did the screenplay.
...I don't stagger back in amazement that some finance hacks have finally stumbled upon the bleedin' obvious.
No, that would be the Apple In-Ear 'phones. The earbuds don't even come close to fitting 100% in the ear (which is why I bought some in-ear so that I could turn the volume DOWN and still hear the music).
And this has exactly what to do with me?
What colour is the sky on your planet?
Damn, and I've just used up my mod points. *Doffs cap*
So it's probably just as well that OSX doesn't rely on it then.
Yes you can get both (although the UK online store has CoD listed as "Currently unavailable" - an expansion pack is in stock though, so I assume it is just sold out).
Plus, awful was originally synonymous with awe-inspiring.
Or imagine a world where people don't leap head first into the slippery slope fallacy.
My God! You've cracked it. Apple's new slogan: "OSX, featuring Much Nicer Windows(tm)".
... So frankly I'm not sure he is serious about the turnip thing either
...did this shit get modded to 'insightful'?
Hmmm. Mods using the Wikipedia definition of 'troll' I see....
I like the way the article slips 'high prices' into the middle of the list hoping we won't notice. Heads up fellas: the first two you list are at least partially function of high prices.
Well, actually no it didn't. More that 30% more errors.
Here's the head to head, if you are interested
Wikipedia already has all of these - plus the lack of a strong disciplinary system, meaning good editors get sick of harassment (or simply the lack of enforcement of the incivility policy )and simply leave.
Or because it is an inherently flawed idea based on wishy-washy thinking.
Is this a rhetorical question?
Taking it the next step and faking an entire 'reality' show has a certain attraction, I suppose - except that it isn't really that well done. It just feels horribly scripted to me (something the other two I mention largely avoided).
Of course, I might be wrong....
You are of course labouring under the illusion that the whole thing isn't a hoax on the viewer.
Still doesn't address the question. Providing a source does not make a falsehood true. Repeating a libel is still a libel. Why should the burden of proof be on the 'accused'?
So why should the victim of a falshood have to prove anything?