... but with time I have switched the opposite way. Now I use the landline whenever possible, and my mobile (cell) phone only for emergencies (and texting).
Why? you may ask.
The reason is that mobile phones are so unreliable. All the mobile phones I have had:
* Provide poor sound quality. Either it sounds like I'm yelling or nobody can hear me because it sounds muffled (and vice versa). Plus the sound is tinny and compressed, not pleasant for long conversations.
* Horrible reception (in areas of my flat there is no reception for my mobile)
* Sometimes a call just fails half way through (even with perfect reception on both ends), most of the time the phone keeps cutting out, so you miss letters, words and sometimes whole sentences.
* Sometimes I don't even receive a call. People call me on my land line and say that they have been trying to reach my mobile for ages. My mobile does not ring, it does not even mention I have a missed call in such situations (it would tell me eventually, like a few hours later). And yes, I have good reception in these situations.
Not to mention the phones themselves are unreliable:
* I cannot rely on my mobile to always be working. Its just so complex that it is prone to crashing every now and then. I don't remember the last time I had to check my landline to see if the phone was still responding.
* Battery life. I sometimes have long conversations. Its nice not to worry about running the battery down. Or not finding out that the reason nobody can call you is because your battery ran down without your knowledge.
Other reasons:
*Mobile phones are expensive. If I break a landline headset. I can buy a new one cheaply. Mobiles cost a lot of money (unless you get a contract which gives you a phone for free or cheap, but then the monthly bill will be more expensive then my current mobile bill and landline combined).
*I always know where my landline headset is, because it stays in one place. Rather then digging around while my mobile rings incessantly (But this is just my disorganization rather than a problem with my phone).
These are the experiences I had with many different mobile phones on many different networks. The only thing that has stayed the same is that I live in the UK. Maybe the infrastructure here is just a P.O.S (wouldn't surprise me, most of the infrastructure here sucks, from the rail to broadband). The only advantage is that calls to other mobiles are cheaper for me then from a landline (because all my friends just use mobiles).
I'm not saying that there is not a place for mobile phones (I do like mine for the mobility, texting and the ability to talk to people out of the house). But I still believe landlines are better and will use them whenever possible, at least until some of the above issues are ironed out.
The court found that somehow the Serbian government was not in control of the Serbian army when it genocided the Bosnians.
Yes, because it was not the Serbian army. It was the Bosnian Serb army. Just because both armies have "serb" in them does not make them the same. Hence the Serbian government had no control, The Bosnian Serb government did, whose leader ordered the siege and massacre (with his military commanders warning him that it would be classed as genocide) and as such is an indicted war criminal (and rightly so).
A Serbian government that publicly directed the genocide.
Actually... Most of the public did not know it was going on. During the war they were fed propaganda by the regime that, among other things, never mentioned the killing.
Those that knew what was happening (and that the elections were rigged) attempted to remove the regime in 1991/2 but was crushed by the Army (Funny how none of the western powers felt it wise to help them overthrow the government until 1999, quite a bit too late to stop the war).
Indeed. When the truth came out many normal people were disgusted, and some were (and still are) in a state of denial of what happened. (of course you have the right-wing nuts who still think it was the right thing to do etc.... but they are a minority).
That appointed all the army generals and ensured its officers were loyal to their "Greater Serbia at any cost" cause.That recruited its soldiers.
The Bosnian Serb army comprised of Bosnian Serbs (not the Army of Serbia). Indeed the Army also comprised of Bosnian Muslims, Greeks and assortments of other fighters which joined together. Not exactly an ethnically clear cut army.
That publicly dehumanized Bosnians, blaming them for any number of crimes against Serbia and demanding their destruction.
Partially correct. The propaganda machine did dehumanize Bosnian [muslims]. If the truth was known by enough of the masses, there would have probably been a large-scale revolt. Their destruction was not called for directly. Essentially they were portrayed as attacking and driving out Bosnian Serbs from Bosnia in an effort to make a pure Muslim state, and that the Bosnian Serb Army was in fact just protecting their rights to be there.
The Bosnian Muslims did commit many crimes against Bosnian Serbs as well. Ranging from Forced Drinking of Battery acid, to torture, rape, murder and filmed decapitation (Pictures of this exist, I'm sure you can find them on the net). The Propaganda machine really spun these crimes, to the point where it seemed that it was the Bosnian Muslims doing most of the killing, which was used to justify the war in the eyes of the public.
It seems a common misconception that in a war, only one side ever commits "crimes". This is very rarely the case. More often than not both sides are to blame. In the Bosnian War, All the sides (Bosnian Croats, Muslims and Serbs) committed brutal atrocities against one another. The only difference was that the Bosnian Serbs had gained access to most of the existing countries (Yugoslavia) weaponry, so were more powerful.
Which the Serbian army then did, often and effectively, right in line with Serbia's policy and propaganda.
I pointed out the Army bit already. As for Serbia's Policy. Officially it was none of their business, and this is unfortunately what many people did. They swallowed the state propaganda, either out of ignorance or out of fear of reprisals (many people who were critical of the regime/war would "disappear" or have an unfortunate fatal accident).
The unofficial policy is of course not noted down, but is generally assumed that the Bosnian Serb Army needed support, and the Serbian Government essentially wrote them a blank cheque for military hardware. It is generally assumed that the Serb Government knew about what was going on. And had the power to stop it, but didn't. hence they were "Comp
Or Bosnia about Serbian genocide I don't know much about the other examples you mentioned. But I don't see how this one goes with your reasoning. The link you provided points out that:
"Serbia has not conspired to commit genocide, nor incited the commission of genocide; Serbia has not been complicit in genocide." and:
the UN's highest court did decide that the Srebrenica massacre was indeed an act of genocide and that Serbia had had the power to prevent it but did not do so
So There was an act of genocide, but it was not perpetrated by Serbia. So how should they be guilty for it?? It would be like my neighbour telling me they will kill everyone in their household, then going to do it. Me knowing that it is occuring does not make me liable for his actions, does it? (even if I could have stopped it the moment he told me).
Am I obliged to stop my neighbour? Am I liable for what he had done? Or was it essentially none of my business? I may get into trouble for knowing about his intentions/the crime but not doing anything about it (This is a bit of a legal gray area), but I don't think I would be responsible for his actions.
All over the world, bad things happen, be it theft, robbery, murder or grand things like war/genocide/etc... perpetrated by people, businesses and governments. And most of the world turn a blind eye to it.
I'm not saying its the right thing to do, or that its moral/ethical/etc... but it does not make you liable.(to the best of my knowledge)
(Trying to get back on topic) The Issue here is that AMD claims Intel destroyed evidence. Now if Intel had started deleting email archives that they kept for years as soon as the case started, then I can see AMD's argument. But if Intel had a long term policy of not keeping archives longer then 7 days at most (for example, TFA says 30-60 days) which was in effect long before the antitrust case, then its not a deliberate attempt at destruction of evidence. You can say it was lost due to incompetence, poor policy or probably a ton of other things, but I don't think you could say it was deliberate destruction.
is the rockbox firmware (http://www.rockbox.org/) Which provides gaplesss mp3 playback, ogg vorbis, FLAC and other codec support (those are the ones I use).
I have a 5th Gen ipod which works perfectly, and a 3rd Gen which plays FLAC flawlessly, but has some issues with ogg vorbis (in development). Also you can boot back into the original apple firmware if you want to listen to your iTunes collection.
The base system is about 50mb, and comes with quite a few programs (such as web browser and text editor), but is extendable with installable modules (like firefox and openoffice). I have seen it run on old 486's, so if your laptop is newer then that, you should be fine.
It will run from liveCD, RAM or directly from the hard disk (once installed).
and FLAC, and another seven or so codecs, if you use the RockBox firmware.
I got a 30GB Video ipod as a present (5gen), while I was looking for an irivier, because I wanted ogg vorbis support. But by the end of it, I came across the Rockbox firmware, which is an opensource replacement for the apple firmware, and provides a lot of extra features like:
Support for lots of codecs, including AAC,mp3,Ogg,ALAC,FLAC Gapless playback Replaygain support Extensions in the form of plugins (including games) Fully Theamable Can copy songs both too it and from it, appears like a USB storage device
And others, but those are the ones I use. While Apple caters to the masses, who are not interested in things like vorbis support, for those of us that are, the option exists. As such I see little reason for apple to bother implementing it, as long as they do not try to prevent people doing it themselves.
Also Rockbox does not remove the apple firmware, so you can switch between the two, allowing you to use the Apple firmware (and iTunes) if you wish side by side with rockbox.
Slashdot Mirror
... but with time I have switched the opposite way. Now I use the landline whenever possible, and my mobile (cell) phone only for emergencies (and texting).
Why? you may ask.
The reason is that mobile phones are so unreliable. All the mobile phones I have had:
* Provide poor sound quality. Either it sounds like I'm yelling or nobody can hear me because it sounds muffled (and vice versa). Plus the sound is tinny and compressed, not pleasant for long conversations.
* Horrible reception (in areas of my flat there is no reception for my mobile)
* Sometimes a call just fails half way through (even with perfect reception on both ends), most of the time the phone keeps cutting out, so you miss letters, words and sometimes whole sentences.
* Sometimes I don't even receive a call. People call me on my land line and say that they have been trying to reach my mobile for ages. My mobile does not ring, it does not even mention I have a missed call in such situations (it would tell me eventually, like a few hours later). And yes, I have good reception in these situations.
Not to mention the phones themselves are unreliable:
* I cannot rely on my mobile to always be working. Its just so complex that it is prone to crashing every now and then. I don't remember the last time I had to check my landline to see if the phone was still responding.
* Battery life. I sometimes have long conversations. Its nice not to worry about running the battery down. Or not finding out that the reason nobody can call you is because your battery ran down without your knowledge.
Other reasons:
*Mobile phones are expensive. If I break a landline headset. I can buy a new one cheaply. Mobiles cost a lot of money (unless you get a contract which gives you a phone for free or cheap, but then the monthly bill will be more expensive then my current mobile bill and landline combined).
*I always know where my landline headset is, because it stays in one place. Rather then digging around while my mobile rings incessantly (But this is just my disorganization rather than a problem with my phone).
These are the experiences I had with many different mobile phones on many different networks. The only thing that has stayed the same is that I live in the UK. Maybe the infrastructure here is just a P.O.S (wouldn't surprise me, most of the infrastructure here sucks, from the rail to broadband). The only advantage is that calls to other mobiles are cheaper for me then from a landline (because all my friends just use mobiles).
I'm not saying that there is not a place for mobile phones (I do like mine for the mobility, texting and the ability to talk to people out of the house). But I still believe landlines are better and will use them whenever possible, at least until some of the above issues are ironed out.
And no, I am *not* over 30.
The court found that somehow the Serbian government was not in control of the Serbian army when it genocided the Bosnians.
Yes, because it was not the Serbian army. It was the Bosnian Serb army. Just because both armies have "serb" in them does not make them the same. Hence the Serbian government had no control, The Bosnian Serb government did, whose leader ordered the siege and massacre (with his military commanders warning him that it would be classed as genocide) and as such is an indicted war criminal (and rightly so).
A Serbian government that publicly directed the genocide.
Actually... Most of the public did not know it was going on. During the war they were fed propaganda by the regime that, among other things, never mentioned the killing. Those that knew what was happening (and that the elections were rigged) attempted to remove the regime in 1991/2 but was crushed by the Army (Funny how none of the western powers felt it wise to help them overthrow the government until 1999, quite a bit too late to stop the war).
Indeed. When the truth came out many normal people were disgusted, and some were (and still are) in a state of denial of what happened. (of course you have the right-wing nuts who still think it was the right thing to do etc.... but they are a minority).
That appointed all the army generals and ensured its officers were loyal to their "Greater Serbia at any cost" cause.That recruited its soldiers.
The Bosnian Serb army comprised of Bosnian Serbs (not the Army of Serbia). Indeed the Army also comprised of Bosnian Muslims, Greeks and assortments of other fighters which joined together. Not exactly an ethnically clear cut army.
That publicly dehumanized Bosnians, blaming them for any number of crimes against Serbia and demanding their destruction.
Partially correct. The propaganda machine did dehumanize Bosnian [muslims]. If the truth was known by enough of the masses, there would have probably been a large-scale revolt. Their destruction was not called for directly. Essentially they were portrayed as attacking and driving out Bosnian Serbs from Bosnia in an effort to make a pure Muslim state, and that the Bosnian Serb Army was in fact just protecting their rights to be there.
The Bosnian Muslims did commit many crimes against Bosnian Serbs as well. Ranging from Forced Drinking of Battery acid, to torture, rape, murder and filmed decapitation (Pictures of this exist, I'm sure you can find them on the net). The Propaganda machine really spun these crimes, to the point where it seemed that it was the Bosnian Muslims doing most of the killing, which was used to justify the war in the eyes of the public.
It seems a common misconception that in a war, only one side ever commits "crimes". This is very rarely the case. More often than not both sides are to blame. In the Bosnian War, All the sides (Bosnian Croats, Muslims and Serbs) committed brutal atrocities against one another. The only difference was that the Bosnian Serbs had gained access to most of the existing countries (Yugoslavia) weaponry, so were more powerful.
Which the Serbian army then did, often and effectively, right in line with Serbia's policy and propaganda.
I pointed out the Army bit already. As for Serbia's Policy. Officially it was none of their business, and this is unfortunately what many people did. They swallowed the state propaganda, either out of ignorance or out of fear of reprisals (many people who were critical of the regime/war would "disappear" or have an unfortunate fatal accident).
The unofficial policy is of course not noted down, but is generally assumed that the Bosnian Serb Army needed support, and the Serbian Government essentially wrote them a blank cheque for military hardware. It is generally assumed that the Serb Government knew about what was going on. And had the power to stop it, but didn't. hence they were "Comp
So There was an act of genocide, but it was not perpetrated by Serbia. So how should they be guilty for it?? It would be like my neighbour telling me they will kill everyone in their household, then going to do it. Me knowing that it is occuring does not make me liable for his actions, does it? (even if I could have stopped it the moment he told me).
Am I obliged to stop my neighbour? Am I liable for what he had done? Or was it essentially none of my business? I may get into trouble for knowing about his intentions/the crime but not doing anything about it (This is a bit of a legal gray area), but I don't think I would be responsible for his actions.
All over the world, bad things happen, be it theft, robbery, murder or grand things like war/genocide/etc... perpetrated by people, businesses and governments. And most of the world turn a blind eye to it.
I'm not saying its the right thing to do, or that its moral/ethical/etc... but it does not make you liable.(to the best of my knowledge)
(Trying to get back on topic) The Issue here is that AMD claims Intel destroyed evidence. Now if Intel had started deleting email archives that they kept for years as soon as the case started, then I can see AMD's argument. But if Intel had a long term policy of not keeping archives longer then 7 days at most (for example, TFA says 30-60 days) which was in effect long before the antitrust case, then its not a deliberate attempt at destruction of evidence. You can say it was lost due to incompetence, poor policy or probably a ton of other things, but I don't think you could say it was deliberate destruction.
Available for the follwing:
Archos, iRiver, Apple (iPod) and iAudio
is the rockbox firmware (http://www.rockbox.org/) Which provides gaplesss mp3 playback, ogg vorbis, FLAC and other codec support (those are the ones I use).
I have a 5th Gen ipod which works perfectly, and a 3rd Gen which plays FLAC flawlessly, but has some issues with ogg vorbis (in development). Also you can boot back into the original apple firmware if you want to listen to your iTunes collection.
I dunno how old your laptop is, but try Damn Small Linux
The base system is about 50mb, and comes with quite a few programs (such as web browser and text editor), but is extendable with installable modules (like firefox and openoffice). I have seen it run on old 486's, so if your laptop is newer then that, you should be fine. It will run from liveCD, RAM or directly from the hard disk (once installed).
and FLAC, and another seven or so codecs, if you use the RockBox firmware.
I got a 30GB Video ipod as a present (5gen), while I was looking for an irivier, because I wanted ogg vorbis support. But by the end of it, I came across the Rockbox firmware, which is an opensource replacement for the apple firmware, and provides a lot of extra features like:
Support for lots of codecs, including AAC,mp3,Ogg,ALAC,FLAC
Gapless playback
Replaygain support
Extensions in the form of plugins (including games)
Fully Theamable
Can copy songs both too it and from it, appears like a USB storage device
And others, but those are the ones I use. While Apple caters to the masses, who are not interested in things like vorbis support, for those of us that are, the option exists. As such I see little reason for apple to bother implementing it, as long as they do not try to prevent people doing it themselves.
Also Rockbox does not remove the apple firmware, so you can switch between the two, allowing you to use the Apple firmware (and iTunes) if you wish side by side with rockbox.