Then they should be counted as civilians, and given the protection of the US Constitution. There is no such thing (in a civilized country) as a condition where a person has no legal protections or rights. They are always covered by something. If it's not the Geneva convention, it's something else.
The people that want to pull out frame the retreat as if as soon as the US leaves the Sunni, Shiites, and Kurds will all of a sudden put down their weapons and hug.
I have never heard ANYONE say anything like this. Can you point me to quotes from a specific person, or are these people merely fictional characters you created? Tell me who it is that thinks like this.
You claim that it is "the people who want to pull out." But I want a pull out, and I know dozens of others who want a pull-out, and none of us think it will be pretty.
In 4 years, I'm sure everyone's either heard how to behave around the US military
And what is that way to behave? Not exist? Not be a woman, as that makes you vulnerable to rape by US soldiers? Not be a young male, as that makes you vulnerable to arrest and possible torture by US soldiers?
Please enlighten us on this "proper way to behave" around US troops. And please provide evidence that this is better than living under Saddam's rule. Back then, people were mostly free to go about their business. Today they can't go outside without being exposed to violence and troops. And today, the religious extremists have more power, so there are harsher laws about what women can do (for example) than under the more secular and tolerant regime of Hussein.
Why is it that when an insurgent walks into a market square and blows himself up along with 50 others it isn't reported that they are making people less tolerant to these fanatics?
Huh? Because it generally doesn't. Due to the actions of the US, there is a lot of support for insurgency. Every time the US kills more innocent Iraqis, the fanatics gain support. When Saddam was in power, there would have been little sympathy for suicide bombings. But after years of the US destroying their homes, many think that Iraqis need to resist the occupation by any means necessary.
I know whenever a US troop screws up we have to hear that.
Total bullshit. There have been tons of screw-ups that have gone unreported. Heck, we didn't hear anything about Abu Ghraib unti months (more than a year?) after it happened. And it's not like we don't hear about suicide bombings and insurgent attacks. Those get reported every night.
I'm trying to understand what your point is. Do you think that mistakes the US makes in Iraq should not be reported or something? Do you think that rapes and murders committed by the US military should not be broadcast?
That's when you have to explain to them that Microsoft and Apple don't care.
How is that a good explanation? As far as the user is concerned, Apple and Microsoft do care about their needs - iTunes and MS Office fulfill those needs. They would see it as Linux developers not caring. After all, if Linux developers care, then why can't they make software like iTunes?
You appear to be trying to manipulate the desires of the user, rather than meet those desires. That's not going to happen. It's like telling someone who wants to buy a car that cars pollute, so he shouldn't drive one, and should buy a bicycle. The car buyer doesn't care he wants to buy a car, and he'll tell you to fuck off and shove that bicycle up your ass, while he buys that car.
There is no prior period in history where individuals recieved their immediate information via sources that they could not use direct personal experience to evaluate, or to hold accountable for erroneous actions motivated by the receipt of erroneous information.
Yes, never before in history have humans gained their information via mystical religious sources via indirect experience. People in history never listened to "prophets" and mystics. It used to be that you go and hold the guy writing the Bible accountable. And those peasants were always able to hold the King responsible when errors were made in what the King determined reality and the law of the land to be. In the past, people didn't read about scientific discoveries, everybody did their own rigorous experiements. And there never existed people who made news up to influence the world, and lived free of consequence in massive mansions with millions of dollars and personal bodyguards. After all, Citizen Kane was a work of fiction, and had no similarities to real life whatsoever.
The point of a democracy is to allow the populace access to information from which they make decisions that will guide their governmental institutions.
I thought the point of a democracy was to have the citizens elect their leaders.
There is no democracy without access to unbiased information.
So, democracy is impossible? Unbiased information does not exist (at least in the political realm.) I thought the point of free speech was being able to say biased things, and allow people to make up their minds what to believe. If there was such a thing as unbiased information, why bother with elections and debates? Why not just decide leaders based on logic, using Artificial Intelligence or something?
The practice of manipulating information is anti-democracy and anti-America.
Nonsense, it's at the heart of what America stands for. As is having a functioning bullshit detector to expose the manipulations.
Americans are not supposed to agree or disagree with governmental agendas, but to set the agendas.
Again, you're not making sense. If citizens are going to be setting government agendas, then isn't it critical that Americans decide whether or not they agree with them? What's the use of govnment if they can't do things? What's the use of citizenry if they can't support or criticize the things government does?
You want people to set agendas without agreeing with them?
Crossing the Altantic in a small boat is hardly a very important endeavor, or one that many people do. It's basically irrelevant - compared to the lives of millions of people who are affected by climate change. So yes, climatology is much more useful and important than meteorology. It's not like our economies depend on small boats crossing the Atlantic.
What the fuck? What does this have to do with reviewing products? The "10 things we hate" article was not a product review. Journalistic integrity? the articles was a travesty not fit for publication. The fact that the editor wanted to run such crap, shows he has little journalistic integrity and should have been fired.
And if the editor in chief is allowing crap stories to run, shouldn't he be fired? I don't see the problem with reining in a terrible editor. Editors aren't infallible gods.
Hunderds of thousands. It's more the norm than an exception. It's like they say, there's a fine line between being a cop and being a criminal. Both careers attract the same sort of people.
PC World Editor Resigns When Ordered Not to Criticize Advertisers
Except that title is bullshit. He was not ordered not to criticize advertisers. He was asked not to run crap stories. There's a huge difference there, which has been widely mis-reported. Care to show any evidence that this had anything to do with criticizing advertisers?
What principle is he standing up for? Publishing awful fluff articles? I think that's one principle that should be taken out back and shot in the head.
What does integrity have to do with this story? I don't really see what running lame "10 things we hate" or "10 things we love" articles has to do with journalistic integrity. If anything, it shows a lack of integrity to run vapid link-bait articles.
I want to ask you one question. Do you actually know what I am talking about? No, you do not
If you are "asking" a question, then why did you answer it yourself? Can you tell me why I supposedly don't know what you are talking about?
Response have clear demostrated that you have not read my original post, or the post that is being responding to.
How does my response demonstrate this? I did read your post and the one you replied to . So you are wrong on that matter.
I have expressed my opinion, accept that fact.
I do accept that. When did I say that I don't accept someone posting their opinion? I just don't agree with it. All you seem to have as a response is "you are wrong and I am right" without any rational discussion, or anything further to add to the topic.
You attempted to twist my words
How did I twist your words?
If you were meant something else other than the words you wrote, then I suggest the problem might be with the way you express yourself, not my lack of reading comprehension, or some campaign to twist your words. You don't seem like a very skilled communicator when it comes to the written word. Try writing what you mean, and other people might not get the wrong impression.
The basic thrust of your argument was "Apple sucks, I hate iTunes, and Steve Jobs is full of shit and has no influence."
So, what did you really mean to say?
You enter a discussion over a week later believing that your statements are revolutionary and ground breaking.
Now this is some crazy shit. I don't believe there is anything revolutionary or groundbreaking about my comments. In fact, they are simple, commonsense statements. Why would you think that I believe my comments are revolutionary?
What relevance does my entering the discussion a week later have? My comments are just as relevant (or irrelevant) whether I rabidly follow slashdot discussions in real-time, or whether I comment one year later. What's the big deal about not responding when the thread is new?
I have to laugh at the fact that you actually believe that this move will influence the large companies to allow there must to be DRM free. Remember this. The day the lawsuits about file sharing stops, the day that other record companies may follow EMI.
So, you don't think Jobs had any effect on this. So tell me, why did EMI decide to go DRM-free after Jobs' comments? Do you believe that they were pushing for this before? Why do you think so many smaller labels are now embracing Jobs' offer?
You or I are not privy to the reasoning of these companies - but there does seem to be a correlation between Jobs talking about getting rid of DRM, and some concrete steps in that direction. So, after you've stopped laughing, perhaps you can tell me why you think EMI have done this at this particular point in time, and why it has suddenly become such a widely dicussed topic in the media, after getting almost no coverage at all?
Meteorology and climatology are two different fields, you idiot. And when it comes down to it, it's much more important to predict the climate over the next 50 years than to know what the weather will be like next week.
Uh, guys... Spock is a fictional character. That means he doesn't really exist. He is played by an actor named Leonard Nimoy, whose home planet is Earth.
It's the episode where they have to drive the dark oil matter tanker to make a delivery, and Leela protests. So Bender is promoted to captain. The tanker spills and causes the penguins to overbreed. Bender resets in "penguin mode" and becomes the mother of some penguins.
"It seems dark-matter is nature's sex drug. It's like a perverted trail mix of penguin estrogen, penguine Viagra and Spanish penguin fly." - Paul, the space hippy
Here is the story. There are people who do not want iTunes on their computer.
So, don't install iTunes on your computer. That wasn't hard, was it?
It is a fact that it is possible to transfer songs from your computer to another a non-iPod player after using iTunes.
Right. So, what's your point?
This is just PR.
If it were just PR, then they wouldn't actually be offering a new, DRM-free product, would they? The fact is that the lack of DRM (and higher bitrates) is a tangible benefit to many users. It may also be good PR, but it's also an actual difference to the product.
It is up to the record companies to decide whether or not to release there media DRM-free. No statements to record companies will change this. No speeches by Steve Jobs will change this.
Again, what's your point. Of course it's up to the labels. They own the right to license the material under their own terms. But Jobs speeches and statements can influence whether they decide to go DRM-free or not. And it appears that is what is actually happening. Many record labels (such as independents) have expressed interest in that since Jobs wrote his essay about DRM and music. EMI (and others to follow) are actually following up on Jobs words. So he doesn't appear to be without any influence.
On the other side they are saying "Sorry but it is impossible to allow iTunes to work with other players".
Firstly, Apple never said it was impossible. But it's their right not to - it's their product, and you don't have to use it.
Secondly, I'm kind of confused. You started by saying you didn't want to install iTunes. Now you are asking that iTunes supports other players, which implies you do want to use it. Which is it?
Anyone with half a brain know that many other players support AAC files.
Right. So you can use iTunes-purchased songs with those players. Which is one of the benefits of DRM-free tracks. See? Tangible benefit beyond PR. What exactly is the problem?
they just want to make products that you want to buy.
Case in point. Just PR.
So, the "products you want to buy" have no actual use? They are just PR to benefit the company? That's kind of strange. Why would you buy a product if it had no use to you?
Slashdot Mirror
Then they should be counted as civilians, and given the protection of the US Constitution. There is no such thing (in a civilized country) as a condition where a person has no legal protections or rights. They are always covered by something. If it's not the Geneva convention, it's something else.
I have never heard ANYONE say anything like this. Can you point me to quotes from a specific person, or are these people merely fictional characters you created? Tell me who it is that thinks like this.
You claim that it is "the people who want to pull out." But I want a pull out, and I know dozens of others who want a pull-out, and none of us think it will be pretty.
And what is that way to behave? Not exist? Not be a woman, as that makes you vulnerable to rape by US soldiers? Not be a young male, as that makes you vulnerable to arrest and possible torture by US soldiers?
Please enlighten us on this "proper way to behave" around US troops. And please provide evidence that this is better than living under Saddam's rule. Back then, people were mostly free to go about their business. Today they can't go outside without being exposed to violence and troops. And today, the religious extremists have more power, so there are harsher laws about what women can do (for example) than under the more secular and tolerant regime of Hussein.
Huh? Because it generally doesn't. Due to the actions of the US, there is a lot of support for insurgency. Every time the US kills more innocent Iraqis, the fanatics gain support. When Saddam was in power, there would have been little sympathy for suicide bombings. But after years of the US destroying their homes, many think that Iraqis need to resist the occupation by any means necessary.
I know whenever a US troop screws up we have to hear that.Total bullshit. There have been tons of screw-ups that have gone unreported. Heck, we didn't hear anything about Abu Ghraib unti months (more than a year?) after it happened. And it's not like we don't hear about suicide bombings and insurgent attacks. Those get reported every night.
I'm trying to understand what your point is. Do you think that mistakes the US makes in Iraq should not be reported or something? Do you think that rapes and murders committed by the US military should not be broadcast?
How is that a good explanation? As far as the user is concerned, Apple and Microsoft do care about their needs - iTunes and MS Office fulfill those needs. They would see it as Linux developers not caring. After all, if Linux developers care, then why can't they make software like iTunes?
You appear to be trying to manipulate the desires of the user, rather than meet those desires. That's not going to happen. It's like telling someone who wants to buy a car that cars pollute, so he shouldn't drive one, and should buy a bicycle. The car buyer doesn't care he wants to buy a car, and he'll tell you to fuck off and shove that bicycle up your ass, while he buys that car.
Well, if you're going to have a fight, you may as well make it an ape fight.
That's what my grandfather always said, may his soul rest in peace. Unfortunately, he never saw the knife-wielding babboon coming.
Yes, never before in history have humans gained their information via mystical religious sources via indirect experience. People in history never listened to "prophets" and mystics. It used to be that you go and hold the guy writing the Bible accountable. And those peasants were always able to hold the King responsible when errors were made in what the King determined reality and the law of the land to be. In the past, people didn't read about scientific discoveries, everybody did their own rigorous experiements. And there never existed people who made news up to influence the world, and lived free of consequence in massive mansions with millions of dollars and personal bodyguards. After all, Citizen Kane was a work of fiction, and had no similarities to real life whatsoever.
I thought the point of a democracy was to have the citizens elect their leaders.
There is no democracy without access to unbiased information.So, democracy is impossible? Unbiased information does not exist (at least in the political realm.) I thought the point of free speech was being able to say biased things, and allow people to make up their minds what to believe. If there was such a thing as unbiased information, why bother with elections and debates? Why not just decide leaders based on logic, using Artificial Intelligence or something?
The practice of manipulating information is anti-democracy and anti-America.Nonsense, it's at the heart of what America stands for. As is having a functioning bullshit detector to expose the manipulations.
Americans are not supposed to agree or disagree with governmental agendas, but to set the agendas.Again, you're not making sense. If citizens are going to be setting government agendas, then isn't it critical that Americans decide whether or not they agree with them? What's the use of govnment if they can't do things? What's the use of citizenry if they can't support or criticize the things government does?
You want people to set agendas without agreeing with them?
Crossing the Altantic in a small boat is hardly a very important endeavor, or one that many people do. It's basically irrelevant - compared to the lives of millions of people who are affected by climate change. So yes, climatology is much more useful and important than meteorology. It's not like our economies depend on small boats crossing the Atlantic.
What the fuck? What does this have to do with reviewing products? The "10 things we hate" article was not a product review. Journalistic integrity? the articles was a travesty not fit for publication. The fact that the editor wanted to run such crap, shows he has little journalistic integrity and should have been fired.
And if the editor in chief is allowing crap stories to run, shouldn't he be fired? I don't see the problem with reining in a terrible editor. Editors aren't infallible gods.
You're pissed off that people are using a medium with potential to empower, to empower themselves? Hmmmm. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
Yes. That hardly needs to be pointed out. So, what's your point?
Hunderds of thousands. It's more the norm than an exception. It's like they say, there's a fine line between being a cop and being a criminal. Both careers attract the same sort of people.
Except that title is bullshit. He was not ordered not to criticize advertisers. He was asked not to run crap stories. There's a huge difference there, which has been widely mis-reported. Care to show any evidence that this had anything to do with criticizing advertisers?
What principle is he standing up for? Publishing awful fluff articles? I think that's one principle that should be taken out back and shot in the head.
What does integrity have to do with this story? I don't really see what running lame "10 things we hate" or "10 things we love" articles has to do with journalistic integrity. If anything, it shows a lack of integrity to run vapid link-bait articles.
Utter nonsense. A capitalist believes in capital. If government intervention results in accruing more capital, then long live government intervention!
It seems you have an idealistic fantasy about what capitalists actually believe in. It's just a code word for "more money for me."
If you are "asking" a question, then why did you answer it yourself? Can you tell me why I supposedly don't know what you are talking about?
Response have clear demostrated that you have not read my original post, or the post that is being responding to.How does my response demonstrate this? I did read your post and the one you replied to . So you are wrong on that matter.
I have expressed my opinion, accept that fact.I do accept that. When did I say that I don't accept someone posting their opinion? I just don't agree with it. All you seem to have as a response is "you are wrong and I am right" without any rational discussion, or anything further to add to the topic.
You attempted to twist my wordsHow did I twist your words?
If you were meant something else other than the words you wrote, then I suggest the problem might be with the way you express yourself, not my lack of reading comprehension, or some campaign to twist your words. You don't seem like a very skilled communicator when it comes to the written word. Try writing what you mean, and other people might not get the wrong impression.
The basic thrust of your argument was "Apple sucks, I hate iTunes, and Steve Jobs is full of shit and has no influence."
So, what did you really mean to say?
You enter a discussion over a week later believing that your statements are revolutionary and ground breaking.Now this is some crazy shit. I don't believe there is anything revolutionary or groundbreaking about my comments. In fact, they are simple, commonsense statements. Why would you think that I believe my comments are revolutionary?
What relevance does my entering the discussion a week later have? My comments are just as relevant (or irrelevant) whether I rabidly follow slashdot discussions in real-time, or whether I comment one year later. What's the big deal about not responding when the thread is new?
I have to laugh at the fact that you actually believe that this move will influence the large companies to allow there must to be DRM free. Remember this. The day the lawsuits about file sharing stops, the day that other record companies may follow EMI.So, you don't think Jobs had any effect on this. So tell me, why did EMI decide to go DRM-free after Jobs' comments? Do you believe that they were pushing for this before? Why do you think so many smaller labels are now embracing Jobs' offer?
You or I are not privy to the reasoning of these companies - but there does seem to be a correlation between Jobs talking about getting rid of DRM, and some concrete steps in that direction. So, after you've stopped laughing, perhaps you can tell me why you think EMI have done this at this particular point in time, and why it has suddenly become such a widely dicussed topic in the media, after getting almost no coverage at all?
Meteorology and climatology are two different fields, you idiot. And when it comes down to it, it's much more important to predict the climate over the next 50 years than to know what the weather will be like next week.
Uh, guys... Spock is a fictional character. That means he doesn't really exist. He is played by an actor named Leonard Nimoy, whose home planet is Earth.
It's the episode where they have to drive the dark oil matter tanker to make a delivery, and Leela protests. So Bender is promoted to captain. The tanker spills and causes the penguins to overbreed. Bender resets in "penguin mode" and becomes the mother of some penguins.
"It seems dark-matter is nature's sex drug. It's like a perverted trail mix of penguin estrogen, penguine Viagra and Spanish penguin fly." - Paul, the space hippy
Which period are you talking about? The period after which copyright expires? The time it takes to develop an Open Source application?
So, don't install iTunes on your computer. That wasn't hard, was it?
It is a fact that it is possible to transfer songs from your computer to another a non-iPod player after using iTunes.Right. So, what's your point?
This is just PR.If it were just PR, then they wouldn't actually be offering a new, DRM-free product, would they? The fact is that the lack of DRM (and higher bitrates) is a tangible benefit to many users. It may also be good PR, but it's also an actual difference to the product.
It is up to the record companies to decide whether or not to release there media DRM-free. No statements to record companies will change this. No speeches by Steve Jobs will change this.Again, what's your point. Of course it's up to the labels. They own the right to license the material under their own terms. But Jobs speeches and statements can influence whether they decide to go DRM-free or not. And it appears that is what is actually happening. Many record labels (such as independents) have expressed interest in that since Jobs wrote his essay about DRM and music. EMI (and others to follow) are actually following up on Jobs words. So he doesn't appear to be without any influence.
On the other side they are saying "Sorry but it is impossible to allow iTunes to work with other players".Firstly, Apple never said it was impossible. But it's their right not to - it's their product, and you don't have to use it.
Secondly, I'm kind of confused. You started by saying you didn't want to install iTunes. Now you are asking that iTunes supports other players, which implies you do want to use it. Which is it?
Anyone with half a brain know that many other players support AAC files.Right. So you can use iTunes-purchased songs with those players. Which is one of the benefits of DRM-free tracks. See? Tangible benefit beyond PR. What exactly is the problem?
they just want to make products that you want to buy.Case in point. Just PR.
So, the "products you want to buy" have no actual use? They are just PR to benefit the company? That's kind of strange. Why would you buy a product if it had no use to you?