My opinion stands.. you're a copyright troll. If it wasn't for copyright law, no-one would ever give you a dime. That's the definition of non-fair trade to me.
So, it's perfectly OK for someone to take his work, claim it as their own (plagiarism), lie about it, and then sue him when he tries to do something about it? And then you call him (the victim) a troll? You claim that he is the one guilty of unfair actions? WTF?
Racists and bigots throughout the world are well known for supporting Hispanics, blacks, Indians, Cubans, and women, dontcha know.
You are following a logical fallacy. Just because there are "minorities" involved with the Tea Party, doesn't mean that the Tea Party doesn't have a lot of racist members.
Again, way to avoid reality, and to completely avoid what you initially said. You claimed that people were being accused of racism because they disagreed with Obama's policies. There is zero evidence of this, and the links you provide to "prove" this don't prove anything of the sort.
If they wanted to see if there was any validity to what I was talking about, the info is out there. A Google search like what you mention would take less than a minute. They don't want to find it. They want to talk about something they've not looked into because that comforts them.
Calling the Tea Party "racist" is not the same as calling people racist because they disagree with Obama's policies. The Tea Party is composed of many racist elements - the fact that they disagree with Obama's policies is incidental.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Ahem. Given your blatant fabrication of reality above, that would apply most strongly to yourself. You are so blinded by ideology, you can't see any nuance or rationality.
I'm defining "left" as Democrat-controlled and "right" as Republican-controlled.
Why would you do that? Democrats are barely left-wing by common definitions of the word.
If that's what you meant to say, then why not just say "Democrat" and Republican"? There's not a clear split between the parties on left-right ideological grounds.
I very much doubt that he said "Asterisk asterisk asterisk asterisk 'em all." I know slashdot has incompetent editors, but you could at least get the fucking quote right.
Income tax is on income, not capital gains. He wouldn't have been paying income tax on his share sale anyway.
The proposal he opposed (backed by his money) was to include capital gains as income. So, if it had passed, his share sales would have been taxed. That's the whole point of the story.
And his argument was that it would hurt his ability to attract talent.
If you believe what he says. Frankly, Ballmer doesn't seem like the most honest and forthright person in the world. Why would you trust anything he says?
REAL American beer is done in microbrews.... like here in Portland, Oregon.
That doesn't really compute. How are those microbreweries supplying the whole of the USA, which is quite a large country? I think if you look into the data, you'll find that the vast majority of American beer is supplied by the "macrobreweries" like Anheuser-Busch and Molson Coors. What makes them less authentically American than the microbreweries?
I know it might seem odd but maybe the editor legimately thought the Internet was public domain and is now paying for her mistake.
How is someone with the job title of "editor" not aware that the entirety of the internet is not public domain? That should be the very first thing that every modern editor should know. Hell, they're teaching that to elementary school kids these days.
The fact the have to precede a perfectly good word like property with a modifier just shows that it isn't property to begin with it's an idea.
That doesn't make any sense. If I sell a house with views of the ocean as "coastal property," how does that modifier transform it from being an actual property into an idea? What it actually does is raise the value of the property, because people like buying houses with ocean views.
Why? How on Earth is it in Greenpeace's interest to promote worse polluters? Can you not see how this is an incredible claim?
Greenpeace isn't particularly interested in the environment. It's more about a social agenda. See, for example, the opposition to any nuclear power, even if it reduces pollution.
And given that you think it's so ineffective, why bother donating to Greenpeace?
It's mostly out of habit and laziness. It is a serious question, and I think I will cancel my monthly donations. I haven't until now, because I dread the telephone conversation involved - it's like trying to cancel cable TV. It's a lot easier just to let them continue taking my money than to confront them about it.
They don't have the part of the brain that you would use to make such a decision.
I would certainly hope they don't have the part of my brain that I would use to make such decisions. After all, it's my fucking brain and they shouldn't be stealing part of my brain to use for themselves.
More nonsense. Apple is well-known as not being very public about its future products, but being exceptionally public about whatever it thinks will improve its brand image.
Perhaps they didn't think it would? After all, at the time, environmentalism did not have a positive public image in America. It was seen almost as a gateway to Communism.
Also, Apple's website tends to focus on its products, with a lot less of the corporate boosterism and irrelevant blather than its competitors. Surely, environmental policy is an internal matter, not something that should be exploited for PR purposes? I certainly don't trust companies that trumpet their environmental "credentials" too loudly. It's usually not a genuine concern.
Basing an environmental assessment on statements on their website is absurd.
Agreed. Good thing I didn't say anything about that. Are you reading from a script?
I'm not reading from a script. That's basically what Greenpeace did at the time. They declared Apple worse than the rest of the industry, simply based on statements on their website. Perhaps their methodology has improved since then, but it was definitely suspect at the time, and almost made me stop donating to Greenpeace because of such sensationalistic and suspect tactics.
Greenpeace is not interested in making polluters look *good*, so you'd have to have a pretty wild imagination to believe that they fixed their own reports just to make Apple look bad by promoting its competitors.
And yet, that's exactly what they did. They gave competitors a better score, not based on actual practice, but based on hot-air promises on their websites.
Apple, ultimately, made the changes as a clear response to public pressure to do so—this much is obvious because public pressure was the only business case for the changes. Greenpeace contributed to that public pressure.
I very much doubt that public pressure had anything to do with it. The industry as a whole was going through significant changes in process, with things like ROHS in Europe. It was just circumstantial that Greenpeace mounted their campaign against Apple around the same time that these changes were beginning, but had not yet been completed. So it looks like Greenpeace and public pressure had a lot more influence than it really did. I think government policies such as ROHS, and industry-wide practices had a lot more impact. Greenpeace was basically irrelevant in all of this, nothing more than a sideshow.
Re:How stupid can you get?
on
USB 'Dead Drops'
·
· Score: 4, Funny
They really don't have any standards for art anymore, do they?
I hear the ISO is considering the issue, but if you want swifter action, I suggest you submit an RFC to the IETF.
Re:Error 503: Too late, bittorrent already invente
on
USB 'Dead Drops'
·
· Score: 1
Why would I want to go to a dark alley on new work to plug my laptop into a usb port sticking out of a wall?
For the cheap thrill? Isn't that why people insert other things sticking out of walls, or insert their thing into holes in walls in New York?
Nonsense. They were based on profiles of usage of harmful industrial chemicals and irresponsible disposal policies, and Greenpeace took into direct corporate policy statements on timelines for reversal of these policies.
Not nonsense. Apple is well-known as not being very public about its operations. Basing an environmental assessment on statements on their website is absurd.
Furthermore anybody can make bullshit PR statements on their website about what they are going to do, but it's action that matters. Apple was already well ahead of the industry at the time in shipping products with minimal packaging, and products that were more energy-efficient than the competition, and used less materials. Yet Greenpeace, of course, does not take that into account.
Apple very quickly turned this around.
How do you know this wasn't already planned before Greenpeace got involved? Crediting Greenpeace with these changes is not based on facts.
As an example, when environmental groups ran campaigns to disproportionately shame Apple, their first response was damage control in the form of publicly asserting that they're no worse than their lowest-common-denominator competitors, but their long-term response was to not only make major changes in their corporate environmental policies but to trumpet them as yet another value in the Apple brand.
This is revisionist history. Apple was already way ahead of other companies on environmental impact, and the Greenpeace targeting of them was complete bullshit. There was no "major change" in their environmental policies. Greenpeace's metrics were based on unsubstantiated PR statements, not actual environmental impact.
"Unemployed Coss was only caught when he sent residents on his street photos of himself saying he was an internet 'troll.'"
I'm not sure which is weirder - that his street photos have residents, or that a still photograph could convey him saying something. Was there a speech bubble drawn on the photograph or something?
So, since Apple be the largest X of Y in the WORLD, and first in market share and mind share, I find it entirely appropriate to drag Apple's name into the negative aspects of consumer electronics, including suicides among poorly treated workers, and outright poisoning of them.
You're only perpetuating the problem. After all, "there's no such thing as bad publicity." Stories like this aren't going to tarnish Apple's reputation, they are only going to put Apple products at the forefront of people's minds, and perhaps generate a sale or two.
If you're trying to damage Apple, this isn't a good approach to take.
Slashdot Mirror
My opinion stands.. you're a copyright troll. If it wasn't for copyright law, no-one would ever give you a dime. That's the definition of non-fair trade to me.
So, it's perfectly OK for someone to take his work, claim it as their own (plagiarism), lie about it, and then sue him when he tries to do something about it? And then you call him (the victim) a troll? You claim that he is the one guilty of unfair actions? WTF?
For what it's worth, the G1 iPod was pretty lame.
What was lame about it? It was far more sophisticated than its competitors.
How about Contiki instead?
That only works if you're aged between 18 and 35 years old, and I don't support age discrimination.
Racists and bigots throughout the world are well known for supporting Hispanics, blacks, Indians, Cubans, and women, dontcha know.
You are following a logical fallacy. Just because there are "minorities" involved with the Tea Party, doesn't mean that the Tea Party doesn't have a lot of racist members.
Again, way to avoid reality, and to completely avoid what you initially said. You claimed that people were being accused of racism because they disagreed with Obama's policies. There is zero evidence of this, and the links you provide to "prove" this don't prove anything of the sort.
If they wanted to see if there was any validity to what I was talking about, the info is out there. A Google search like what you mention would take less than a minute. They don't want to find it. They want to talk about something they've not looked into because that comforts them.
Calling the Tea Party "racist" is not the same as calling people racist because they disagree with Obama's policies. The Tea Party is composed of many racist elements - the fact that they disagree with Obama's policies is incidental.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Ahem. Given your blatant fabrication of reality above, that would apply most strongly to yourself. You are so blinded by ideology, you can't see any nuance or rationality.
I'm defining "left" as Democrat-controlled and "right" as Republican-controlled.
Why would you do that? Democrats are barely left-wing by common definitions of the word.
If that's what you meant to say, then why not just say "Democrat" and Republican"? There's not a clear split between the parties on left-right ideological grounds.
'**** 'em all,' Braun told Xbiz.
I very much doubt that he said "Asterisk asterisk asterisk asterisk 'em all." I know slashdot has incompetent editors, but you could at least get the fucking quote right.
It's odd that people would make these types of remarks about political motivations when the left is currently in power.
What the fuck are you talking about? The current administration is center-right, not even remotely "left."
Remember how many people have been called "racist" for disagreeing with Obama's politics?
Approximately zero? Who are you referring to?
Why does it matter who owns them? They are brewed in America, and sold to Americans.
You fail to see how whether the proposed tax was passed or not it would have absolutely NO IMPACT on the $2 billion in shares he sold?
From The Fine Summary: "I-1098 would apply this tax rate to all income, including capital gains and dividends,"
I'm not seeing how it wouldn't apply to his share sales.
Income tax is on income, not capital gains. He wouldn't have been paying income tax on his share sale anyway.
The proposal he opposed (backed by his money) was to include capital gains as income. So, if it had passed, his share sales would have been taxed. That's the whole point of the story.
And his argument was that it would hurt his ability to attract talent.
If you believe what he says. Frankly, Ballmer doesn't seem like the most honest and forthright person in the world. Why would you trust anything he says?
REAL American beer is done in microbrews.... like here in Portland, Oregon.
That doesn't really compute. How are those microbreweries supplying the whole of the USA, which is quite a large country? I think if you look into the data, you'll find that the vast majority of American beer is supplied by the "macrobreweries" like Anheuser-Busch and Molson Coors. What makes them less authentically American than the microbreweries?
I know it might seem odd but maybe the editor legimately thought the Internet was public domain and is now paying for her mistake.
How is someone with the job title of "editor" not aware that the entirety of the internet is not public domain? That should be the very first thing that every modern editor should know. Hell, they're teaching that to elementary school kids these days.
The fact the have to precede a perfectly good word like property with a modifier just shows that it isn't property to begin with it's an idea.
That doesn't make any sense. If I sell a house with views of the ocean as "coastal property," how does that modifier transform it from being an actual property into an idea? What it actually does is raise the value of the property, because people like buying houses with ocean views.
Morbidly obese patient is now slightly less morbidly obese.
Why? How on Earth is it in Greenpeace's interest to promote worse polluters? Can you not see how this is an incredible claim?
Greenpeace isn't particularly interested in the environment. It's more about a social agenda. See, for example, the opposition to any nuclear power, even if it reduces pollution.
And given that you think it's so ineffective, why bother donating to Greenpeace?
It's mostly out of habit and laziness. It is a serious question, and I think I will cancel my monthly donations. I haven't until now, because I dread the telephone conversation involved - it's like trying to cancel cable TV. It's a lot easier just to let them continue taking my money than to confront them about it.
They don't have the part of the brain that you would use to make such a decision.
I would certainly hope they don't have the part of my brain that I would use to make such decisions. After all, it's my fucking brain and they shouldn't be stealing part of my brain to use for themselves.
More nonsense. Apple is well-known as not being very public about its future products, but being exceptionally public about whatever it thinks will improve its brand image.
Perhaps they didn't think it would? After all, at the time, environmentalism did not have a positive public image in America. It was seen almost as a gateway to Communism.
Also, Apple's website tends to focus on its products, with a lot less of the corporate boosterism and irrelevant blather than its competitors. Surely, environmental policy is an internal matter, not something that should be exploited for PR purposes? I certainly don't trust companies that trumpet their environmental "credentials" too loudly. It's usually not a genuine concern.
Basing an environmental assessment on statements on their website is absurd.
Agreed. Good thing I didn't say anything about that. Are you reading from a script?
I'm not reading from a script. That's basically what Greenpeace did at the time. They declared Apple worse than the rest of the industry, simply based on statements on their website. Perhaps their methodology has improved since then, but it was definitely suspect at the time, and almost made me stop donating to Greenpeace because of such sensationalistic and suspect tactics.
Greenpeace is not interested in making polluters look *good*, so you'd have to have a pretty wild imagination to believe that they fixed their own reports just to make Apple look bad by promoting its competitors.
And yet, that's exactly what they did. They gave competitors a better score, not based on actual practice, but based on hot-air promises on their websites.
Apple, ultimately, made the changes as a clear response to public pressure to do so—this much is obvious because public pressure was the only business case for the changes. Greenpeace contributed to that public pressure.
I very much doubt that public pressure had anything to do with it. The industry as a whole was going through significant changes in process, with things like ROHS in Europe. It was just circumstantial that Greenpeace mounted their campaign against Apple around the same time that these changes were beginning, but had not yet been completed. So it looks like Greenpeace and public pressure had a lot more influence than it really did. I think government policies such as ROHS, and industry-wide practices had a lot more impact. Greenpeace was basically irrelevant in all of this, nothing more than a sideshow.
They really don't have any standards for art anymore, do they?
I hear the ISO is considering the issue, but if you want swifter action, I suggest you submit an RFC to the IETF.
Why would I want to go to a dark alley on new work to plug my laptop into a usb port sticking out of a wall?
For the cheap thrill? Isn't that why people insert other things sticking out of walls, or insert their thing into holes in walls in New York?
Nonsense. They were based on profiles of usage of harmful industrial chemicals and irresponsible disposal policies, and Greenpeace took into direct corporate policy statements on timelines for reversal of these policies.
Not nonsense. Apple is well-known as not being very public about its operations. Basing an environmental assessment on statements on their website is absurd.
Furthermore anybody can make bullshit PR statements on their website about what they are going to do, but it's action that matters. Apple was already well ahead of the industry at the time in shipping products with minimal packaging, and products that were more energy-efficient than the competition, and used less materials. Yet Greenpeace, of course, does not take that into account.
Apple very quickly turned this around.
How do you know this wasn't already planned before Greenpeace got involved? Crediting Greenpeace with these changes is not based on facts.
As an example, when environmental groups ran campaigns to disproportionately shame Apple, their first response was damage control in the form of publicly asserting that they're no worse than their lowest-common-denominator competitors, but their long-term response was to not only make major changes in their corporate environmental policies but to trumpet them as yet another value in the Apple brand.
This is revisionist history. Apple was already way ahead of other companies on environmental impact, and the Greenpeace targeting of them was complete bullshit. There was no "major change" in their environmental policies. Greenpeace's metrics were based on unsubstantiated PR statements, not actual environmental impact.
"Unemployed Coss was only caught when he sent residents on his street photos of himself saying he was an internet 'troll.'"
I'm not sure which is weirder - that his street photos have residents, or that a still photograph could convey him saying something. Was there a speech bubble drawn on the photograph or something?
So, since Apple be the largest X of Y in the WORLD, and first in market share and mind share, I find it entirely appropriate to drag Apple's name into the negative aspects of consumer electronics, including suicides among poorly treated workers, and outright poisoning of them.
You're only perpetuating the problem. After all, "there's no such thing as bad publicity." Stories like this aren't going to tarnish Apple's reputation, they are only going to put Apple products at the forefront of people's minds, and perhaps generate a sale or two.
If you're trying to damage Apple, this isn't a good approach to take.