Apple was pure evil about this. I got my kid an iPod touch a few years ago. I set him up with his own AppleID, and loaded his iTunes account with a generous iTunes gift card. I told him that there were lots of free apps and he should save his money by playing the free apps.
Here's the mistake you made (maybe only obvious in hindsight): You gave him _one_ _generous_ gift card. The kid then made a mistake, and because he had one _generous_ gift card, it was an expensive mistake. He probably learned something. But he would have had the same learning experience from a cheap gift card, and then would have fun with some more cheap gift cards. I think a good strategy for parenting is to let the kids make their mistakes and learn from them, but make sure that the mistakes are not too expensive.
Of course the cost of the phone is built into the monthly fee. The point is that this fee remains the same regardless of whether you keep using the old phone or get an upgrade. That is why the upgrade is effectively free.
The upgrade isn't free. If you don't upgrade, you get ripped off because you continue paying the loan for your first phone even when the phone is paid. If you "upgrade", you get a new phone, and a new loan.
Nope - that's not the problem. The problem is patents that are so obvious that everyone infringes them without even realising it.
The idea behind patents is that because of patent protection, I will invent something and publish it as a patent, whereas without patent protection, I wouldn't bother inventing it, so it would never be invented, which would be a loss to society.
If people infringe on a patent without even realising it, then clearly it would not have been a loss to society if the inventor hadn't invented it. Not if other people create it without even thinking that it might be something special deserving a patent.
Even if it isn't obvious, if companies routinely hire people who will figure the same thing out, obvious or not, then having it patented doesn't serve any purpose that helps society.
For every piece of open source software, 99.99% of the people who use it are end users who will never, ever look at the source code and who will never, ever contribute to it. Even active open source developers will never, ever contribute to most of the open source software out there.
So if you remove all the "freeloaders", most of the purpose of the software is gone. In the official GPL rationale, the whole purpose of the GPL is to make sure that the "freeloaders" cannot only use the software, but are free to modify it - without contributing anything. (Not that I agree with the rationale, because the percentage of end users who can actually take advantage of these rights is minuscule).
I put it down to a society with fucked up values, such as encouraging/rewarding people for being selfish, and limiting parents ability to discipline their own kids.
Well, that cop was born in the 1940's, and I think back then parents did discipline their kids. Didn't help.
I don't see how the alternative - a 43 year old guy beating down a 71 year old man - would be better or less life threatening than the shot that was fired.
There is no indication whatsoever that the 43 year old was hitting or beating the older man, or was threatening to hit or beat him. They were in different rows of the theatre, which makes hitting someone a bit harder, and either there were plenty of people around who could have intervened if there was a fist fight, or the killer should have found a place away from the victim.
So yes, I can very much see how the alternative - probably nothing happening - would have been a lot better.
Did you read the article?
This father feels the need to text her in movie theaters. Where other adults have paid money to be able to sit and watch something.
He didn't shoot him for texting, he shot him after he turned out to be a complete asshole over it and started throwing popcorn.
An armed society is a polite society. Sometimes an example has to be made. I thank the shooter for what he did, giving up his personal liberty so that we can all enjoy movies in peace.
Here's how I read it: During the preview, where nobody is watching, this father texted his three year old daughter. An ex-cop with a gun and an exaggerated sense of entitlement told him to stop. The father didn't see any reason to do so - he was texting, not talking, and nobody else complained. Ex-cop with a gun tries to find a manager, and either didn't find one or was told that they don't care about texting during the preview. Ex-cop goes back and starts a confrontation, knowing that he has a loaded gun in his pocket. There's a bit of an argument, the father's popcorn goes flying, probably by the ex-cop with a gun hitting it, and since hitting the guys popcorn isn't enough, the ex-cop shoots him.
The guy is repeatedly asked to turn off his cellphone and he refuses. The old guy leaves the theater to report him, but he either can't find a manager (I know in my local theater good luck finding an employee during a movie), or they refuse to do anything about it. He comes back and the texting guy turns (as reported) and accuses the old man of trying to get him ejected from the theater. We don't know exactly the way he put it but I can imagine. He gets up and turns around. Since they are one row apart, that';s probably less than a yard from the old guys face, and then he throws popcorn in his face. From the pictures, this guy seems pretty tall and strong and it's not unreasonable that one punch from him could kill a 71 year old.
Here's where your argument falls absolutely flat: The 71 year old had a loaded gun with him. A loaded gun is an accident or murder waiting to happen. Since he had a gun, and was willing to use it, he should never, ever, ever have returned to the theatre. Did he think having a loaded gun makes him a strong man who doesn't need to be afraid of a fight? In that case, he should never have been allowed to take a gun with him.
All the calories in soda are in the form of sugar. Over 90 grams per day will turn you into a diabetic in the long term, at which point health costs go through the roof - unless of course they just let you die.
What happens to the points on your licence? Get caught speeding 4 times, and you usually get banned from driving.
If you are so secret that traffic police isn't supposed to know that you are secret, then they might be able to get you a second driving license. On the other hand, if you work undercover and the gang that you try to infiltrate knows you have been caught speeding four times, they might be wondering what's going on if you keep your license.
Aaron Swartz was offered a plea deal to serve 3 months.
For admitting having committed a crime when he did something that he and many didn't consider being a crime, with the alternative offer being tens of years in jail if he dared fighting a career obsessed prosecutor. And while three months in jail isn't too bad, the consequences for your life when you come out are quite devastating.
2. Without a car you can't realize bulk savings. You can't buy a gallon of milk, a full carton of eggs, and the package of 6 drumsticks/6 thighs. At some point your arms can't carry it all. So in order to eat fresh you end up getting the half gallon, the six pack of eggs, and the smaller chicken package.
Just saying: You can get a shopping bag on wheels. Many elderly people do because they have to, but as a young(ish) adult you can do it as well.
Obesity is only related to poverty if you don't know how to take care of yourself. Which is an important point, we need to help these people learn to take care of themselves.
Poverty would be related to not knowing how to take care of yourself in the first place.
Where do you get that from? What is legal for them is driving at higher speed than the speed limit. What is still not legal is dangerous driving, causing damage to others, or injuring or killing other people. In case of an accident, they will be just as much at fault as before, except they won't get a speeding ticket.
Just like an ambulance car is allowed to drive past a red traffic light: They don't have the right of way, and they are required to do this with all the necessary care to avoid accidents.
Speed limit is 70mph on motorways. I read somewhere, a few years ago mind, that the _average_ non-HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle) speed was around 80mph. It's not a rule that is particularly vigorously enforced. Over 100mph may get more attention and generally results in loss of licence for a period if prosecuted.
A few years ago, fuel was a lot cheaper. Lots of people are now going at lower speed than 10 years ago. There are also certain areas where driving 71mph _can_ and driving 80mph _will_ get you a speeding ticket, so if you are visiting the UK and don't know where these areas are, maybe you should slow down.
If the Secret Intelligence Service tries to get away with speeding, they have to reveal who they are, then they aren't secret anymore. In fact anyone speeding might be revealing they're in the Secret Intelligence Service.
You missed the "intelligence" bit. Breaking speed limits is now _legal_ for them instead of illegal. If they are caught, they still get a speeding ticket and it gets paid, by the Secret Service if it was done on duty and by the agent if he had no excuse, so nobody knows that they are Secret Service. This isn't about not paying fines, it is about legality. Whether an agent is allowed legally to keep up with a speeding criminal or not.
.. was what some defendent in the UK posted on Facebook when it looked like there wasn't quite enough evidence to convict him. Which was reported to the judge. Who took it as an admission of guilt, and the guy got convicted.
If two "practitioners skilled in the art" come up with the same idea independently, it SHOULD automatically invalidate the patent. That is part of the patent language, is it not?
No. It isn't. First, you can't patent ideas. Second, inventions should be non-obvious. But if something is so non-obvious that nobody figures it out then it can't be patented, right? So it must be possible for one person to figure it out. And if one person can figure it out, then another might. Now if a dozen people "have a same idea", that might be an indication that it is obvious, but not with two.
That the good Samaritan gets away with it has little to do with the law as written - according to the law, it's still vandalism.
Breaking into a car to get a baby out that is suffering from heat (especially in Australia, where this could be quite severe in some places) is not vandalism, it is self defense. Self defense covers protecting others as well, and allows use of an appropriate amount of violence. Breaking into a car to safe a baby from a heat stroke seems appropriate.
Any cites for that so-called fact. MAC's are closed systems with a much more engineered life span than a clone PC. As stated previously no parts to be swapped any failure is the end of life for a MAC. The anomaly of MAC's upswing could be attributed to the absolute lack of any upgrade path.
Bloody, bloody idiot.
Here's what people do with a PC when a part breaks: They dump it and buy a new one. Here's what people do with a Mac (It's a Mac, MAC is a Media Access Controller) when a part breaks: They take it to a store where it gets fixed.
And seriously, claiming that an increase in Mac sales happens because they cannot be upgraded is beyond idiotic.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple was pure evil about this. I got my kid an iPod touch a few years ago. I set him up with his own AppleID, and loaded his iTunes account with a generous iTunes gift card. I told him that there were lots of free apps and he should save his money by playing the free apps.
Here's the mistake you made (maybe only obvious in hindsight): You gave him _one_ _generous_ gift card. The kid then made a mistake, and because he had one _generous_ gift card, it was an expensive mistake. He probably learned something. But he would have had the same learning experience from a cheap gift card, and then would have fun with some more cheap gift cards. I think a good strategy for parenting is to let the kids make their mistakes and learn from them, but make sure that the mistakes are not too expensive.
Of course the cost of the phone is built into the monthly fee. The point is that this fee remains the same regardless of whether you keep using the old phone or get an upgrade. That is why the upgrade is effectively free.
The upgrade isn't free. If you don't upgrade, you get ripped off because you continue paying the loan for your first phone even when the phone is paid. If you "upgrade", you get a new phone, and a new loan.
why need an password for free apps? needs more control like say no password for free / updates and or an pin / password for buying stuff.
If you didn't need a password for free apps, then anybody with access to the device could download any malicious app as long as it is free.
Nope - that's not the problem. The problem is patents that are so obvious that everyone infringes them without even realising it.
The idea behind patents is that because of patent protection, I will invent something and publish it as a patent, whereas without patent protection, I wouldn't bother inventing it, so it would never be invented, which would be a loss to society.
If people infringe on a patent without even realising it, then clearly it would not have been a loss to society if the inventor hadn't invented it. Not if other people create it without even thinking that it might be something special deserving a patent.
Even if it isn't obvious, if companies routinely hire people who will figure the same thing out, obvious or not, then having it patented doesn't serve any purpose that helps society.
For every piece of open source software, 99.99% of the people who use it are end users who will never, ever look at the source code and who will never, ever contribute to it. Even active open source developers will never, ever contribute to most of the open source software out there.
So if you remove all the "freeloaders", most of the purpose of the software is gone. In the official GPL rationale, the whole purpose of the GPL is to make sure that the "freeloaders" cannot only use the software, but are free to modify it - without contributing anything. (Not that I agree with the rationale, because the percentage of end users who can actually take advantage of these rights is minuscule).
I put it down to a society with fucked up values, such as encouraging/rewarding people for being selfish, and limiting parents ability to discipline their own kids.
Well, that cop was born in the 1940's, and I think back then parents did discipline their kids. Didn't help.
Actually, throwing the popcorn was assault and probably battery
100 percent proof that Americans are the biggest wimps in the universe.
New data out from the UK, where guns are banned, shows gun crime has soared by 35 percent.
You mean from free shootings in a decade to four?
I don't see how the alternative - a 43 year old guy beating down a 71 year old man - would be better or less life threatening than the shot that was fired.
There is no indication whatsoever that the 43 year old was hitting or beating the older man, or was threatening to hit or beat him. They were in different rows of the theatre, which makes hitting someone a bit harder, and either there were plenty of people around who could have intervened if there was a fist fight, or the killer should have found a place away from the victim.
So yes, I can very much see how the alternative - probably nothing happening - would have been a lot better.
Did you read the article?
This father feels the need to text her in movie theaters. Where other adults have paid money to be able to sit and watch something.
He didn't shoot him for texting, he shot him after he turned out to be a complete asshole over it and started throwing popcorn.
An armed society is a polite society. Sometimes an example has to be made. I thank the shooter for what he did, giving up his personal liberty so that we can all enjoy movies in peace.
Here's how I read it: During the preview, where nobody is watching, this father texted his three year old daughter. An ex-cop with a gun and an exaggerated sense of entitlement told him to stop. The father didn't see any reason to do so - he was texting, not talking, and nobody else complained. Ex-cop with a gun tries to find a manager, and either didn't find one or was told that they don't care about texting during the preview. Ex-cop goes back and starts a confrontation, knowing that he has a loaded gun in his pocket. There's a bit of an argument, the father's popcorn goes flying, probably by the ex-cop with a gun hitting it, and since hitting the guys popcorn isn't enough, the ex-cop shoots him.
The guy is repeatedly asked to turn off his cellphone and he refuses. The old guy leaves the theater to report him, but he either can't find a manager (I know in my local theater good luck finding an employee during a movie), or they refuse to do anything about it. He comes back and the texting guy turns (as reported) and accuses the old man of trying to get him ejected from the theater. We don't know exactly the way he put it but I can imagine. He gets up and turns around. Since they are one row apart, that';s probably less than a yard from the old guys face, and then he throws popcorn in his face. From the pictures, this guy seems pretty tall and strong and it's not unreasonable that one punch from him could kill a 71 year old.
Here's where your argument falls absolutely flat: The 71 year old had a loaded gun with him. A loaded gun is an accident or murder waiting to happen. Since he had a gun, and was willing to use it, he should never, ever, ever have returned to the theatre. Did he think having a loaded gun makes him a strong man who doesn't need to be afraid of a fight? In that case, he should never have been allowed to take a gun with him.
Water has ZERO calories vs. a boatload for soda.
All the calories in soda are in the form of sugar. Over 90 grams per day will turn you into a diabetic in the long term, at which point health costs go through the roof - unless of course they just let you die.
What happens to the points on your licence? Get caught speeding 4 times, and you usually get banned from driving.
If you are so secret that traffic police isn't supposed to know that you are secret, then they might be able to get you a second driving license. On the other hand, if you work undercover and the gang that you try to infiltrate knows you have been caught speeding four times, they might be wondering what's going on if you keep your license.
Aaron Swartz was offered a plea deal to serve 3 months.
For admitting having committed a crime when he did something that he and many didn't consider being a crime, with the alternative offer being tens of years in jail if he dared fighting a career obsessed prosecutor. And while three months in jail isn't too bad, the consequences for your life when you come out are quite devastating.
2. Without a car you can't realize bulk savings. You can't buy a gallon of milk, a full carton of eggs, and the package of 6 drumsticks/6 thighs. At some point your arms can't carry it all. So in order to eat fresh you end up getting the half gallon, the six pack of eggs, and the smaller chicken package.
Just saying: You can get a shopping bag on wheels. Many elderly people do because they have to, but as a young(ish) adult you can do it as well.
Obesity is only related to poverty if you don't know how to take care of yourself. Which is an important point, we need to help these people learn to take care of themselves.
Poverty would be related to not knowing how to take care of yourself in the first place.
Permission without responsibility.
Where do you get that from? What is legal for them is driving at higher speed than the speed limit. What is still not legal is dangerous driving, causing damage to others, or injuring or killing other people. In case of an accident, they will be just as much at fault as before, except they won't get a speeding ticket.
Just like an ambulance car is allowed to drive past a red traffic light: They don't have the right of way, and they are required to do this with all the necessary care to avoid accidents.
Speed limit is 70mph on motorways. I read somewhere, a few years ago mind, that the _average_ non-HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle) speed was around 80mph. It's not a rule that is particularly vigorously enforced. Over 100mph may get more attention and generally results in loss of licence for a period if prosecuted.
A few years ago, fuel was a lot cheaper. Lots of people are now going at lower speed than 10 years ago. There are also certain areas where driving 71mph _can_ and driving 80mph _will_ get you a speeding ticket, so if you are visiting the UK and don't know where these areas are, maybe you should slow down.
And British motorways are among the safest roads on the planet, thereby demonstrating that speed limits have little to do with safety.
It has more to do with the reality that on the M25, you are glad if you can go 50mph. You don't need speed limits if you have traffic jams.
If the Secret Intelligence Service tries to get away with speeding, they have to reveal who they are, then they aren't secret anymore. In fact anyone speeding might be revealing they're in the Secret Intelligence Service.
You missed the "intelligence" bit. Breaking speed limits is now _legal_ for them instead of illegal. If they are caught, they still get a speeding ticket and it gets paid, by the Secret Service if it was done on duty and by the agent if he had no excuse, so nobody knows that they are Secret Service. This isn't about not paying fines, it is about legality. Whether an agent is allowed legally to keep up with a speeding criminal or not.
.. was what some defendent in the UK posted on Facebook when it looked like there wasn't quite enough evidence to convict him. Which was reported to the judge. Who took it as an admission of guilt, and the guy got convicted.
If two "practitioners skilled in the art" come up with the same idea independently, it SHOULD automatically invalidate the patent. That is part of the patent language, is it not?
No. It isn't. First, you can't patent ideas. Second, inventions should be non-obvious. But if something is so non-obvious that nobody figures it out then it can't be patented, right? So it must be possible for one person to figure it out. And if one person can figure it out, then another might. Now if a dozen people "have a same idea", that might be an indication that it is obvious, but not with two.
The entire portfolio should have put into the public domain. That's the price that should be paid in these kinds of things.
To me that sounds entirely unreasonable. So could you explain your reasoning?
That the good Samaritan gets away with it has little to do with the law as written - according to the law, it's still vandalism.
Breaking into a car to get a baby out that is suffering from heat (especially in Australia, where this could be quite severe in some places) is not vandalism, it is self defense. Self defense covers protecting others as well, and allows use of an appropriate amount of violence. Breaking into a car to safe a baby from a heat stroke seems appropriate.
Any cites for that so-called fact. MAC's are closed systems with a much more engineered life span than a clone PC. As stated previously no parts to be swapped any failure is the end of life for a MAC. The anomaly of MAC's upswing could be attributed to the absolute lack of any upgrade path.
Bloody, bloody idiot.
Here's what people do with a PC when a part breaks: They dump it and buy a new one. Here's what people do with a Mac (It's a Mac, MAC is a Media Access Controller) when a part breaks: They take it to a store where it gets fixed.
And seriously, claiming that an increase in Mac sales happens because they cannot be upgraded is beyond idiotic.