Yes, but when CDs first came out, did they find that over 80% of people who bought CD players were still buying tapes and not buying CDs?
Irrelevant comparison. CD players are not compatible with audio cassettes. However, the iPod is compatible with both downloads from the Music Store, and with CDs. The iPod does not force one to change formats. When the CD was released, there was no way for the consumer to burn CDs "ripped" from their existing audio cassettes. In fact, many people replaced their existing cassettes with CD versions. There is no reason for a consumer to replace their existing CDs with songs purchased online.
5% is very significant. Especially considering the context:
1. Most people already have a collection of CDs. So of course all their music will not be from iTunes. 2. Legal digital downloads are a very recent phenomenon 3. Many countries do not have access to the iTunes Music Store yet, as the roll-out has been slow.
Given all these factors, I'd say that 5% of music on iPods being from the iTunes store is actually a huge success. How many people have 5% of their songs from the same independent record label?
Australia doesn't have a violent crime that resembles the US. The biggest problem is white-collar crime, and corruption on behalf of politicans and executives. There isn't very much violent crime. If anything, widespred ownership of weapons would make it worse.
Of course, the US is also full of corporate crime and corruption, but also has a high level of violent crime to add injury to insult.
They do look like 3D-renders. Especially the display. Doesn't look like an actual LCD with QVGA resolution. Looks like stock photos pasted from Photoshop. Let's see how that screen actually looks under real-world lighting conditions.
Clearly he is saying he like women who have latino and black heritage.
And thus, doesn't like other women who don't. Although he probably likes other racial groups, it implies there are those he doesn't, because of their "blood."
It might no be "full-on" racist, I doubt he finds all women with that "blood" attractive, so he is certainly indulging in stereotypes.
You're just deliberately not getting it to try to win an argument with someone who knows better.
I am?
There is a distinction between a "natural person" and a "corporate person". Those definitions of "people" do not mention any kind of person other than humans, though "person" does.
Nonsense. There are many definitions in the link you gave that do not include humanity as a criteria. Of course, there are distinctions between humans and corporations. But that doesn't mean it is not correct to use the term "people" to refer to more than one legal person. Just read your own dictionary. I'm not sure why you are insisting that "people" can only refer to humans.
On that note, why do you use the term "natural person" rather than the more straightforward term "human"? My main point with this persons/people thing is that the language is being distorted to accomodate legalistic views of the world. I prefer to go by what the dictionary says, and use human logic. "Natural person" is rather meaningless, because who defines what is natural?
A corporation's communication is either PR without the compulsion of human honor, or a contract, which these pledges are not.
But you don't need a contract for something to be legally binding. One can be sued over things one says outside of a contract.
when the meaning of a person's word is their honor,
But it's not. A person's word is just what they say. Not necessarily their honor. In any case, people do hold corporations to a sense of honor, so I'm not sure what you are driving at. People do judge the word of corporations, whether legally binding or not.
explains everything for me. You're a corporatist, badly defending a position that corporations are "people", not just legally created "persons".
That's an extremely strange interpretation, because I'm quite anti-corporatist, and my meaning in pursuing this line of argument is to show how ridiculous it is when we change the meaning of common words to accomodate corporate and legal desires.
The plural of any kind of person is "persons". "People" [reference.com] is the plural of the kind of "person" who is human.
That's funny. The definition you link to does not restrict the definition to humans. In fact, in the very first (the first definition listed is usually the most common) says it means "persons in general." I'm not understanding why it is improper to refer to legal persons as "people," as people is a more elegant word, and thus should be the preferred usage stylistically.
Corporations don't actually conduct business. The people who own or work for corporations conduct business.
So then, why are lawsuits often cited as "Joe Blogs vs. Company X" and not "Joe Blogs vs. The people who work for Company X"? Why do news reports say "Company X releases roduct Y" if the corporation does not conduct business? The whole reason for a company to exist is to conduct business, and shield humans from the ramifications of that business.
As a purely legal entity, as opposed to a "natural person" (as humans are known to the law), the only "word" that binds a corporation is one that is legally binding.
Which covers a wide range of the corporation's speech.
A human's "word" is our "bond", more than just a legal bond. It is the incarnation of our honor. Corporations have nothing like honor, which is a purely human characteristic.
Thay have to honor the law. Anyway, I'm not sure why you changed the argument. We were talking about whether a company has a word, not whether they have honor.
... but it's the same tactics that right wing nuts use as well, so it kinda balances out.
I'm not understanding how that balances out, as P&T appear to lean heavily to the "right wing nut" side of things. How does this balance out the predominance of right-wing messages in the media?
Re:Disparaging members of other races? Hardly
on
Hacking the Governator
·
· Score: 4, Funny
"They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it."
Actually, Arnie is being racist. His comment implies that those who don't have the "black blood" and the "Latino blood" don't "make it." Whatever the hell that means.
Isn't Clovertown where all the leprechauns hang out? 'Tis a fine place to spend your gold on some Guinness while watching some midget porn. Just don't get into an argument about pipe tobacco with one of those short-assed little shits.
Not disagreeing with you, but "anamorphic" is a misnomer unless the content is actually anamorphic. Widescreen and anamorphic are two different things, For example, Sony's HDV cameras have a native 16:9 image sensor. In fact this gives better quality than using an anamorphic lens to squeeze widescreen down into a lower resolution. Anamorphic gives less horizontal resolution/detail than native widescreen. It's a hangover from the days of film, when Cinemascope images had to be squeezed onto a standard "academt" format film frame with a special lens.
So, in many ways, if you insist on anamorphic, you are getting worse quality than if you want native widescreen. Of course, it's all a hodgepodge, with software methods of creating widescreen images also being termed "anamorphic." Cropped letterbox images or square pixel images are not anamorphic.
Why don't you read the article? If you did, you would realize that even when they did get the cards, the machines did not work properly. And their system for checking-in enrolled voters also fucked up.
All the existing evidence is to the contrary. The actual history of electronic voting has been riddled with bias, error and unreliablility - while hand counting is generally very accurate and reliable.
The assumption was that the aquisition cost was zero. If you start pulling hypothetical rabbits out of hats, you simply can't have a reasonable conversation.
That's exactly what you are doing by saying "not picking it up is a loss." It's completely hypothetical.
The argument sounds a lot like the idea that the RIAA pushes - that every pirated copy of a song is a "lost sale" and money coming directly out of their pockets. Which is an unsupported assumption.
Well now come on. I firmly belive that economics doesn't deserve the term 'science,' but 'whore' is a little much.
Got any other reasonable explanations for what they choose to do, and the bizarre theories they come up with?
I can count 5 different application "looks" now:
- iLife (darker, unified toolbar, squared off corners)
- iTunes 7 (same as iLife, new scrollbars)
- Mail.app (unified toolbar, lighter than iLife, rounder corners)
- Safari/Finder/iCal (etc) (brushed metal)
- TextEdit/Preview (etc) (older non-unified look)
How could you forget the "Pro App" look that is used in Final Cut Studio? IMO, the whole OS should be remodelled after that style. It's kick-ass. Beautiful and functional.
Slashdot Mirror
Irrelevant comparison. CD players are not compatible with audio cassettes. However, the iPod is compatible with both downloads from the Music Store, and with CDs. The iPod does not force one to change formats. When the CD was released, there was no way for the consumer to burn CDs "ripped" from their existing audio cassettes. In fact, many people replaced their existing cassettes with CD versions. There is no reason for a consumer to replace their existing CDs with songs purchased online.
1. Most people already have a collection of CDs. So of course all their music will not be from iTunes.
2. Legal digital downloads are a very recent phenomenon
3. Many countries do not have access to the iTunes Music Store yet, as the roll-out has been slow.
Given all these factors, I'd say that 5% of music on iPods being from the iTunes store is actually a huge success. How many people have 5% of their songs from the same independent record label?
What be this "lass" ye speak orf, matey? Surely ye be referin' to a saucy wench?"
You are wrong.
Of course, the US is also full of corporate crime and corruption, but also has a high level of violent crime to add injury to insult.
They do look like 3D-renders. Especially the display. Doesn't look like an actual LCD with QVGA resolution. Looks like stock photos pasted from Photoshop. Let's see how that screen actually looks under real-world lighting conditions.
A toaster oven accessory.
Corporations is people! We've gotta stop them somehow!
And thus, doesn't like other women who don't. Although he probably likes other racial groups, it implies there are those he doesn't, because of their "blood."
It might no be "full-on" racist, I doubt he finds all women with that "blood" attractive, so he is certainly indulging in stereotypes.
I am?
There is a distinction between a "natural person" and a "corporate person". Those definitions of "people" do not mention any kind of person other than humans, though "person" does.
Nonsense. There are many definitions in the link you gave that do not include humanity as a criteria. Of course, there are distinctions between humans and corporations. But that doesn't mean it is not correct to use the term "people" to refer to more than one legal person. Just read your own dictionary. I'm not sure why you are insisting that "people" can only refer to humans.
On that note, why do you use the term "natural person" rather than the more straightforward term "human"? My main point with this persons/people thing is that the language is being distorted to accomodate legalistic views of the world. I prefer to go by what the dictionary says, and use human logic. "Natural person" is rather meaningless, because who defines what is natural?
A corporation's communication is either PR without the compulsion of human honor, or a contract, which these pledges are not.
But you don't need a contract for something to be legally binding. One can be sued over things one says outside of a contract.
when the meaning of a person's word is their honor,
But it's not. A person's word is just what they say. Not necessarily their honor. In any case, people do hold corporations to a sense of honor, so I'm not sure what you are driving at. People do judge the word of corporations, whether legally binding or not.
explains everything for me. You're a corporatist, badly defending a position that corporations are "people", not just legally created "persons".
That's an extremely strange interpretation, because I'm quite anti-corporatist, and my meaning in pursuing this line of argument is to show how ridiculous it is when we change the meaning of common words to accomodate corporate and legal desires.
That's funny. The definition you link to does not restrict the definition to humans. In fact, in the very first (the first definition listed is usually the most common) says it means "persons in general." I'm not understanding why it is improper to refer to legal persons as "people," as people is a more elegant word, and thus should be the preferred usage stylistically.
Corporations don't actually conduct business. The people who own or work for corporations conduct business.
So then, why are lawsuits often cited as "Joe Blogs vs. Company X" and not "Joe Blogs vs. The people who work for Company X"? Why do news reports say "Company X releases roduct Y" if the corporation does not conduct business? The whole reason for a company to exist is to conduct business, and shield humans from the ramifications of that business.
As a purely legal entity, as opposed to a "natural person" (as humans are known to the law), the only "word" that binds a corporation is one that is legally binding.
Which covers a wide range of the corporation's speech.
A human's "word" is our "bond", more than just a legal bond. It is the incarnation of our honor. Corporations have nothing like honor, which is a purely human characteristic.
Thay have to honor the law. Anyway, I'm not sure why you changed the argument. We were talking about whether a company has a word, not whether they have honor.
I'm not understanding how that balances out, as P&T appear to lean heavily to the "right wing nut" side of things. How does this balance out the predominance of right-wing messages in the media?
Actually, Arnie is being racist. His comment implies that those who don't have the "black blood" and the "Latino blood" don't "make it." Whatever the hell that means.
Isn't Clovertown where all the leprechauns hang out? 'Tis a fine place to spend your gold on some Guinness while watching some midget porn. Just don't get into an argument about pipe tobacco with one of those short-assed little shits.
Anyway, if they don't have a "word" then how do they conduct business? Companies issue statements all the time, and "talk" to other entities.
Aren't corporations legally people?
Penn & Teller are basically full of biased ... bullshit. I don't know why anyone would take their agenda seriously.
Is that like a petting zoo, but with personal ads?
So, in many ways, if you insist on anamorphic, you are getting worse quality than if you want native widescreen. Of course, it's all a hodgepodge, with software methods of creating widescreen images also being termed "anamorphic." Cropped letterbox images or square pixel images are not anamorphic.
Why don't you read the article? If you did, you would realize that even when they did get the cards, the machines did not work properly. And their system for checking-in enrolled voters also fucked up.
All the existing evidence is to the contrary. The actual history of electronic voting has been riddled with bias, error and unreliablility - while hand counting is generally very accurate and reliable.
*not an issue*
That's exactly what you are doing by saying "not picking it up is a loss." It's completely hypothetical.
The argument sounds a lot like the idea that the RIAA pushes - that every pirated copy of a song is a "lost sale" and money coming directly out of their pockets. Which is an unsupported assumption.
Well now come on. I firmly belive that economics doesn't deserve the term 'science,' but 'whore' is a little much.
Got any other reasonable explanations for what they choose to do, and the bizarre theories they come up with?
If you understood the post you were replying to, then why did you mention pan-and-scan? It was specifically mentioned as widescreen.
How could you forget the "Pro App" look that is used in Final Cut Studio? IMO, the whole OS should be remodelled after that style. It's kick-ass. Beautiful and functional.