Charging works fine over USB. Transfer also works fine, it's just slower. I use my Nano with an old "Quicksilver" G4 tower that only has USB 1 and Firewire. Because the Nano doesn't hold 30GB of songs, the slow transfer is an issue.
If you only have USB 1, I recommend getting a smaller capacity iPod, from 1-4GB, and just regularly update the playlist, rather than keeping all your songs on a big iPod.
Mainstream media and governments are very politically correct and sensitive when it comes to Islam, especially in Europe where Islamophobia is only slightly less evil than anally raping infants with steel pipes. There really is no "anti-Muslim outrage" going on in the mainstream, unless you're referring to self-inflicted things like news about the latest honor killing or suicide attack.
You are obviously full of shit. Current affairs shows are full of "The Islamic threat" stories and whatnot. You'd have to be on crack if you think the mainstream media is at all pro-Muslim, or "sensitive."
and racial profiling is an effective anti-terror measure.
There is no evidence of this. So far, it has just resulted in resources being diverted away from real investigations, and the deaths of innocent people. Tell me what terrorist plot has been foiled by racial profiling. It just makes it easier for terrorists - simply field agents who are not of the profiled race, and they get under the radar, while those of a particular race with nothing to do with terrorism are harassed.
There's no pointing in keeping tabs on Joe Average when virtually all terrorism is commited by non-white Muslims
Utter bullshit. Many terrorists are white Christians. In fact, the majority of terrorist acts in America have been committed by non-Muslims.
Yes, I'm sure white people get racially profiled as Muslims from the Middle-East all the time.
A computer doesn't know you are white, and mistakes could be made, your race wrongly represented, etc.
If there's zero effort required to aquire the $100, it seems to me that for all intents and purposes you've gained it already,
Except that you haven't, in reality, gained it already. What if you get hit by a bus while picking up the note? But I don't wish to press the argument. The way I see it, you don't lose something by not taking advantage of an opportunity. You just don't gain the opportunity. And one can never predict the consequences of any such action. Perhaps the note was stolen from a bank, and leads to you going to prison?
so not picking it up translates to a loss. I dimly remember some economic term for this, something like "lost opportunity cost,"
Economists are widely known to live in a fantasy world out of touch with reality. I think the proper term for "economist" is "whackjob" or "whore."
Have you looked at the size of the actual movie content on most DVDs? Often the movie file itself (without extra features) will fit fine on a single-layer disc, and the quality is perfectly OK. If you compress a movie with care and attention, even low bitrates can look good. On the other hand, high-bitrate compressions don't necessarily yield a better-looking movie if it isn't done properly.
It's not just the cost involved. The $100 analogy doesn't hold up on its own, even without reference to Google. Losing $100 means that you must have had $100 that you no longer have. Otherwise, it's not a loss. Anyway, aren't you supposed to give the $100 to the police first, and wait to see if anybody claims the money?
The board of directors of a corporation have to answer to their shareholders. Period.
Firstly, that appears not be true. Many companies blatantly ignore what their shareholders want, but continue to stay in business.
Also, there are other options. They could quite their jobs when the company is headed towards questionable ethics. Or, the owners of Google could have kept it a private company. I don't see where there is a law that companies have to be traded on the stock market. I don't think the board of directors and management of Google are excused from their choices because of this "it's a public company" justification. Somebody chose to make Google a public company, so certainly they can be blamed for this.
Being a public company also does not compel a company to open for business in China. The bottom line is that greed causes people to abandon ethics. There aren't any excuses for that.
It's like there's an unwritten agreement that we'll never speak of VHS ever again, like it was an embarrassing mistake that it ever took off in the first place.
That's about how I feel (not the never speaking about it part, though). Video has been an embarassment, VHS in particular. Film is much better. Before video came along, students and amateur film-makers would use 16mm film, which is a beautiful medium. High Definition video still can't beat 16mm film, after all these decades. But because of video, people put up with crap media.
How many video formats are going to be made obsolete in a short span of time, when we had a perfectly good format available the whole time, that is still superior? Use a film camera from the 60s or 70s. Works beautifully. Now try using a video camera from the 80s, or even 90s. Junk.
Players in the market must let government decide things that "should" and "should not" be allowed (although they can lobby the government to change). For the most part the players in the market don't get to make up the rules, they just follow them.
That's quite chilling. The government should decide for us what is right? We should relinquish our own moral/ethical choices? I can't agree with that. People (and that includes companies, which are legal "persons" and run by humans) should do what is "right" above and beyond any laws or government intervention.
I (personally) think it'd be a horrible idea to let big corporations and market forces dictate our morals...
When the government is largely run by large companies, that's exactly what we have. Ordinary people go to jail for stealing $100. Corporate executives get to meet with the President and are called "upstanding citizens" while they embezzle billions, and kill/harm people in the process.
That being said; any corporation which foregoes profits due to their morals/opinions will (all else being equal) be overtaken by a competitor who takes the profit.
So what? There are more important things than making a profit. Allowing profit to be one's guiding force is about the most "evil" behavior one can indulge in. You may as well go and sell heroin to 12 year olds if you believe this philosophy of profit. After all, if you don't do it, someone else will, and they will overtake you!
Seriously, what's the big deal about not making as much money as you possibly can?
but these are contested peacefully - 30% of the population does not want to impose martial law on the other 70%.
I wouldn't be so quick to assume that. I believe that's exactly what they want. They would impose it by force, if they were able to. Many have been trying. In fact, it is quite possible in the next 10-15 years.
In other news, 99% of American Christians would rather live under God's law than under US law. So, I guess Christians aren't really Americans.
Twenty-eight percent of Brirish Muslims hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state.
And what percentage of American Christians hope for the US to become a fundamentalist Christian state? It has to be higher than 28% in my estimation. Seems that British Muslims are more patriotic to Britain than American Christians are to America.
Why should I be outraged? Nobody is outraged when Muslims kill and maim people on a daily basis in every corner of the world
What the fuck? The media and mainstream opinion is constantly outraged about the "Muslim threat." Shit, 5 years later they are still showing stupid TV specials about 9/11. Innocent Muslims are constantly targeted by police. Talkback radio runs bigoted anti-Muslim rants constantly. How can you possibly be ignorant of the anti-Muslim outrage that is pumped out 24 hours a day, all over the Western world?
I don't give two shits about the civil rights of Muslims until they get their act together and stop digging their own grave.
Then you don't deserve your own civil rights. There is no way to tell a Muslim from a non-Muslim just by looking at them or their country of origin. Law enforcement often makes mistakes. So, you may find yourself dead, or being tortured in a secret prison, because someone made a mistake. And your death would have been fueled by attitudes like your own. Digging your own grave, indeed.
It's much easier for Wikipedia to take the high moral road when they are donation driven as opposed to a public profit driven company.
I'm trying to understand what your point is. Is it OK for Google to do bad things, because it is "less easy"? Does it being "easy" for Wikipedia mean its actions have less merit?
It's a strange set of morals you appear to be describing. We should live our lives based on what's easiest? Is that what you are saying? If doing the right thing is difficult, it's OK not to do it?
Many people find it hard to resist sexual temptation. So, is it OK to have an affair, and then lie to your wife about it, because it's easier than telling the truth or not having the affair?
Google also didn't have anything to lose (they were not already in China) - yet they still decided to subvert themselves and their company's ethics out of greed. What does that make them? I'm pretty sure it's the opposite of heroic.
Your comment is irrelevant, because it is quite easy to get uncensored access to the internet from China. Their "Great Firewall" isn't very effective. So, Google is not bringing any new information. It's not like they would have no internet at all without Google. All Google is doing is bowing to corruption and evil in order to make money.
DVDs are slightly different in that they don't tie the content to a specific device - I can put my DVDs into any region 2 DVD player and they will work (but don't get me started on the whole region coding thing).
So, you admit to buying DRM-infested DVDs. Does that mean you are crazy, as you said that anyone who buys DRMed products are?
How do you draw the line? DVD region coding restricts you. It stops you from having a guaranteed playback in the future. So, why is the DRM on DVDs OK, but people are crazy to but songs from the iTMS? In many ways, iTunes has less strict DRM than DVD, because it allows you to legally burn an unencumbered CD. You would have to break the law to do the same with DVD. So, why do you accept the DRM on DVDs, but not on iTunes?
The CREATION of the MythTV platform IS a recreation activity.
That's a pretty stupid recreation activity. If the goal is "home entertainment" - then wouldn't those hours be spent better on something which allows one to enjoy more entertainment content, rather than dicking with setting and shit? You'd have to be pretty warped to enjoy messing with settings.
Slightly altering definitions presented to you don't change that fact. Weblogs are not just about websites, they are about whatever the author WANTS them to be about.
Exactly. Blogs are driven by the ego of a single writer, even if they allow comments. Slashdot is a technology news site that allows comments.
What you're suffering from is a bad case of cognitive dissonance: "I like Slashdot. I don't like blogs. Therefore, Slashdot is not a blog."
Actually, I don't like slashdot that much. I am saying slashdot is not a blog, because slashdot is not a blog, not because I am a huge fan of slashdot.
When your definition of a word, especially a newly coined one, differs from that of almost everyone else who uses it regularly, you might want to reconsider your definition.
The definition becomes pointless is everything is a blog. It seems the blogofans want everything to be a blog, even things that are obviously not.
Most people have more abundant lives, and wouldn't call a Saturday "dead time" - they would find something better to do than waste it. Sure it cost you something - think of all the other things you could have done.
"A weblog, which is usually shortened to blog, is a type of website where entries are made (such as in a journal or diary), displayed in a reverse chronological order.
Blogs often provide commentary or news and information on a particular subject, such as food, politics, or local news; some function as more personal online diaries."
This does not cover the full definition. It means "web log" and is a record of someone's web surfing. And in case you didn't realize, comments on slashdot are displayed in chronological order, so it fails that criteria. It is also not just written by one person.
Internet forums are also commonly referred to as web forums, message boards, discussion boards, discussion forums, discussion groups, bulletin boards (but see also dial-up bulletin boards), fora[2] (the Latin plural) or simply forums.
So, slashdot is a forum. Actually, it's a combination of technology news site and discussion forum. But definitely not a blog. Linking to erroneous definitions doesn't change that fact. If it were a weblog, it would only be about websites, and would be written by a single author.
Slashdot Mirror
If you only have USB 1, I recommend getting a smaller capacity iPod, from 1-4GB, and just regularly update the playlist, rather than keeping all your songs on a big iPod.
You are obviously full of shit. Current affairs shows are full of "The Islamic threat" stories and whatnot. You'd have to be on crack if you think the mainstream media is at all pro-Muslim, or "sensitive."
and racial profiling is an effective anti-terror measure.
There is no evidence of this. So far, it has just resulted in resources being diverted away from real investigations, and the deaths of innocent people. Tell me what terrorist plot has been foiled by racial profiling. It just makes it easier for terrorists - simply field agents who are not of the profiled race, and they get under the radar, while those of a particular race with nothing to do with terrorism are harassed.
There's no pointing in keeping tabs on Joe Average when virtually all terrorism is commited by non-white Muslims
Utter bullshit. Many terrorists are white Christians. In fact, the majority of terrorist acts in America have been committed by non-Muslims.
Yes, I'm sure white people get racially profiled as Muslims from the Middle-East all the time.
A computer doesn't know you are white, and mistakes could be made, your race wrongly represented, etc.
Except that you haven't, in reality, gained it already. What if you get hit by a bus while picking up the note? But I don't wish to press the argument. The way I see it, you don't lose something by not taking advantage of an opportunity. You just don't gain the opportunity. And one can never predict the consequences of any such action. Perhaps the note was stolen from a bank, and leads to you going to prison?
so not picking it up translates to a loss. I dimly remember some economic term for this, something like "lost opportunity cost,"
Economists are widely known to live in a fantasy world out of touch with reality. I think the proper term for "economist" is "whackjob" or "whore."
Have you looked at the size of the actual movie content on most DVDs? Often the movie file itself (without extra features) will fit fine on a single-layer disc, and the quality is perfectly OK. If you compress a movie with care and attention, even low bitrates can look good. On the other hand, high-bitrate compressions don't necessarily yield a better-looking movie if it isn't done properly.
It's not just the cost involved. The $100 analogy doesn't hold up on its own, even without reference to Google. Losing $100 means that you must have had $100 that you no longer have. Otherwise, it's not a loss. Anyway, aren't you supposed to give the $100 to the police first, and wait to see if anybody claims the money?
Firstly, that appears not be true. Many companies blatantly ignore what their shareholders want, but continue to stay in business.
Also, there are other options. They could quite their jobs when the company is headed towards questionable ethics. Or, the owners of Google could have kept it a private company. I don't see where there is a law that companies have to be traded on the stock market. I don't think the board of directors and management of Google are excused from their choices because of this "it's a public company" justification. Somebody chose to make Google a public company, so certainly they can be blamed for this.
Being a public company also does not compel a company to open for business in China. The bottom line is that greed causes people to abandon ethics. There aren't any excuses for that.
That's about how I feel (not the never speaking about it part, though). Video has been an embarassment, VHS in particular. Film is much better. Before video came along, students and amateur film-makers would use 16mm film, which is a beautiful medium. High Definition video still can't beat 16mm film, after all these decades. But because of video, people put up with crap media.
How many video formats are going to be made obsolete in a short span of time, when we had a perfectly good format available the whole time, that is still superior? Use a film camera from the 60s or 70s. Works beautifully. Now try using a video camera from the 80s, or even 90s. Junk.
That's quite chilling. The government should decide for us what is right? We should relinquish our own moral/ethical choices? I can't agree with that. People (and that includes companies, which are legal "persons" and run by humans) should do what is "right" above and beyond any laws or government intervention.
I (personally) think it'd be a horrible idea to let big corporations and market forces dictate our morals...
When the government is largely run by large companies, that's exactly what we have. Ordinary people go to jail for stealing $100. Corporate executives get to meet with the President and are called "upstanding citizens" while they embezzle billions, and kill/harm people in the process.
That being said; any corporation which foregoes profits due to their morals/opinions will (all else being equal) be overtaken by a competitor who takes the profit.
So what? There are more important things than making a profit. Allowing profit to be one's guiding force is about the most "evil" behavior one can indulge in. You may as well go and sell heroin to 12 year olds if you believe this philosophy of profit. After all, if you don't do it, someone else will, and they will overtake you!
Seriously, what's the big deal about not making as much money as you possibly can?
Not at all. I'm not sure how you are able to equate two obviously different things.
I wouldn't be so quick to assume that. I believe that's exactly what they want. They would impose it by force, if they were able to. Many have been trying. In fact, it is quite possible in the next 10-15 years.
Twenty-eight percent of Brirish Muslims hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state.
And what percentage of American Christians hope for the US to become a fundamentalist Christian state? It has to be higher than 28% in my estimation. Seems that British Muslims are more patriotic to Britain than American Christians are to America.
What the fuck? The media and mainstream opinion is constantly outraged about the "Muslim threat." Shit, 5 years later they are still showing stupid TV specials about 9/11. Innocent Muslims are constantly targeted by police. Talkback radio runs bigoted anti-Muslim rants constantly. How can you possibly be ignorant of the anti-Muslim outrage that is pumped out 24 hours a day, all over the Western world?
I don't give two shits about the civil rights of Muslims until they get their act together and stop digging their own grave.
Then you don't deserve your own civil rights. There is no way to tell a Muslim from a non-Muslim just by looking at them or their country of origin. Law enforcement often makes mistakes. So, you may find yourself dead, or being tortured in a secret prison, because someone made a mistake. And your death would have been fueled by attitudes like your own. Digging your own grave, indeed.
I'm trying to understand what your point is. Is it OK for Google to do bad things, because it is "less easy"? Does it being "easy" for Wikipedia mean its actions have less merit?
It's a strange set of morals you appear to be describing. We should live our lives based on what's easiest? Is that what you are saying? If doing the right thing is difficult, it's OK not to do it?
Many people find it hard to resist sexual temptation. So, is it OK to have an affair, and then lie to your wife about it, because it's easier than telling the truth or not having the affair?
So, the logical conclusion would be that the stock market is evil, or at least makes people do evil things? That's not much of a justification.
Google also didn't have anything to lose (they were not already in China) - yet they still decided to subvert themselves and their company's ethics out of greed. What does that make them? I'm pretty sure it's the opposite of heroic.
Your comment is irrelevant, because it is quite easy to get uncensored access to the internet from China. Their "Great Firewall" isn't very effective. So, Google is not bringing any new information. It's not like they would have no internet at all without Google. All Google is doing is bowing to corruption and evil in order to make money.
Interesting.
Dell: "That wasn't so bad."
SEC: "Oh, wait, it hasn't started yet."
*ding*
Dell: *Aaaarrrrghhh*
SEC: "Ok, it's about to start!"
*ding*
Dell: *AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
So, you admit to buying DRM-infested DVDs. Does that mean you are crazy, as you said that anyone who buys DRMed products are?
How do you draw the line? DVD region coding restricts you. It stops you from having a guaranteed playback in the future. So, why is the DRM on DVDs OK, but people are crazy to but songs from the iTMS? In many ways, iTunes has less strict DRM than DVD, because it allows you to legally burn an unencumbered CD. You would have to break the law to do the same with DVD. So, why do you accept the DRM on DVDs, but not on iTunes?
That's a pretty stupid recreation activity. If the goal is "home entertainment" - then wouldn't those hours be spent better on something which allows one to enjoy more entertainment content, rather than dicking with setting and shit? You'd have to be pretty warped to enjoy messing with settings.
Exactly. Blogs are driven by the ego of a single writer, even if they allow comments. Slashdot is a technology news site that allows comments.
Actually, I don't like slashdot that much. I am saying slashdot is not a blog, because slashdot is not a blog, not because I am a huge fan of slashdot.
When your definition of a word, especially a newly coined one, differs from that of almost everyone else who uses it regularly, you might want to reconsider your definition.
The definition becomes pointless is everything is a blog. It seems the blogofans want everything to be a blog, even things that are obviously not.
Most people have more abundant lives, and wouldn't call a Saturday "dead time" - they would find something better to do than waste it. Sure it cost you something - think of all the other things you could have done.
This does not cover the full definition. It means "web log" and is a record of someone's web surfing. And in case you didn't realize, comments on slashdot are displayed in chronological order, so it fails that criteria. It is also not just written by one person.
Internet forums are also commonly referred to as web forums, message boards, discussion boards, discussion forums, discussion groups, bulletin boards (but see also dial-up bulletin boards), fora[2] (the Latin plural) or simply forums.
So, slashdot is a forum. Actually, it's a combination of technology news site and discussion forum. But definitely not a blog. Linking to erroneous definitions doesn't change that fact. If it were a weblog, it would only be about websites, and would be written by a single author.
Since when was Lithium-polymer battery technology proprietary? And what AA batteries can you buy that aren't made by a (proprietary) company?