That's great. I didn't think people actually tried stuff like that... He probably never saw it man, and they never give you your money back anyways. In fact, a retail manager would have probably been more likely and able and willing to credit your account for it.
Anyways, I also think you've misplaced the blame somewhat... I realize that AT&T shouldn't have sent you to collections, but from my understanding I think your anger should be diverted elsewhere:
1.) You. Isn't it your bill? Isn't the snafu going to be listed at the top of it, for the 'several months'? I'm pretty sure you should read those before you blindly pay them. I'm still honestly trying to figure out how this happened. If you kept paying your bill those payments should have been applied to the most past due bills, thus you would, at most, be only a single month behind, which is hardly a 'collections' type of offense.
2.) I thought you said AT&T happily handled their end of the situation, but it was the collections agency that was pestering you and getting on your nerves? But now you're pissed at AT&T? How does that make sense? Because they sent you to collections? Again, I'm not even sure how that's possible, but I'm even less sure how that's possible with you paying attention to the bills more closely.
I realize accepting your responsibility in this situation isn't an easy thing to do, but it's certainly your fault in large part. I believe you've failed to understand why the bill was late (almost all the billing is computerized, and no one gets kicked to collections for a two day late bill; in addition, I don't think AT&T sends ANY active customer to collections, only canceled accounts, but don't quote me), or why it went to collections.
Could it have been handled better by AT&T? Sure, it always can. It could have been handled better by you too.
If you want to 'vote with your dollar' so to speak, don't you think you ought to at least examine the issues?
We can credit them with tearing down the corporate 'ceiling' for children. They used to be stuck only in sweatshops, but now.... well, now the sky's the limit.
We're a little hesitant (hopefully, I know the Patriot Act looks bad... well I've got nothing here) to continue to place more and more power in a centralized state authority.
I think we're pretty well justified in this belief too. We look at Eastern Europe and Balkanization, and say "Federalism, how hard can it be?"
I don't consider your argument fully justified. It doesn't have to be a political indictment, simply just that I don't trust American politicians so I vote them down away from power whenever I can.
Looks like Slashdot got ahold of the Family Guy writing staff. Manatees pushing balloons...
U2 doing Spider-Man on Broadway... ha, what WILL they think of next?
As it's been noted before, it's not slander, it's libel.
And a MySpace User does NOT meet the standards required to violate libel laws. And once it's NOT illegal, look at it like this:
He threw a temper-tantrum about it and he's 'The Man' when it comes to shaping the minds and policies governing the youth and education for that institution. That's like doing something absurd like hiring people who like to have sex with little boys as priests.
We had stuff like this that happened at my school, I was usually the principled dissenter, i.e. I knew who did it, what, and why, but I just kept my mouth shut as long as nothing was getting hurt except feelings. It drives those Principals nuts not because it's libel, or even untrue, it drives them nuts because they are often narcissistic power-craving individuals, and it's the perceived undermining of their authority that sends them off the deep end. I am not going to instantly lump this principal in this group, but the principals I've known mostly fall into this category. I knew a few who felt that individual managing and cooperating with students, as well as treating them with a modicum of respect was the best way to 'govern' an educational institution. Most of them though seemed to prefer the 'Bad Cop' role.
Anyways, whatever it was, he apparently didn't like getting made fun of. Instead of approaching the problem in terms of rehabbing his image with his students he decided that what they REALLY weren't getting enough of was discipline, rules, and regulations... Great... I know THAT'S what kept me going in school. Here's an idea ass-nubbins [the principal], if it's striking a chord, maybe you ought to examine your life choices because guess what, you're at a fucking school, and maybe you missed it, but there are always assholes at school that make fun of people. You either beat the shit out of them (if you can, though you usually got in trouble), got better at making fun of them back (usually just leads to the aforementioned fight), or ignore them and cultivate your life and yourself to the best of your abilities and hope that your success is enough to rub it in their faces. There are still assholes in schools today. Apparently now they make fun of the principal. He decided to beat the shit out of them, allegorically speaking. The only problem is that it's going to prompt more ridicule.
It's becoming a situation he can't control. And I think it's funny as hell. I can't tell you how happy I am that it got Slashdotted. I know that's mean, but an entrenched authority like secondary education and its laughable figurehead (the Principal) deserves a good railing against, and often. I can't think of a system so polluted in different ways from top to bottom that can so immediately ruin or salvage our fortunes, and can't help but think that the whole thing needs a big fucking enema. Don't stop till you hit the back of their teeth.
Mmmmkay, let's say that I grant you every horror story you seem to have concocted about the iPhone, and that it's a horrible, closed platform requiring desktop synchronization and a ritual baby sacrifice. Whatever, nevermind that you have not used/owned an iPhone, and really have only circumstantial evidence to support your claims, let's see why Google's mobile phone offering is superior....
Because it's programmable and network-centric? Man, I'm all for, um, being crazy or whatever it is you're doing here, but seriously, you're comparing an unreleased, only recently announced product from a company that continues to shroud it and its development in secrecy to a product that hasn't been released, hasn't been announced, hasn't even been confirmed except by a cavalier mention of it in a single document, that contains ZERO specifics??
The quote "I'm amazed at how much of an opinion you have on a device that isn't even released yet" doesn't NEED to apply to the iPhone, I wanna know how the hell you can claim to know anything about this mythical GPhone, and how it works without violating any NDAs. And what the hell is this alleged "fact" you've thrown in about Steve Jobs lying about why it's closed? I missed the evidence supporting that claim, and since we're taking so many hits from the CrazyBong, I'm not taking your word for it.
Google has, in the past, released effective, quality products, and have enjoyed commercial success on a global and personal scale. I use Google and Google products, and will continue to in the future. Apple too has earned similar respect from me, as a consumer.
You have just compared two things that you literally have ZERO perception of (other than a picture of ONE of them), much less any actual interaction.
The technology is rapidly approaching a point when I would consider purchasing almost all of my viewed content from Apple.
There are two small issues that I think should be addressed before I ditch Basic Cable, although there are enough perks to make me start thinking about ditching anything above and beyond that.
1.) Free Content. I know the iTunes store has some 'Free' content that it bandies about, but sometimes I just need to throw the TV on to have something playing in the background. It doesn't have to be high quality stuff, but sometimes I just want to thumb through the channels. I'm not going to buy CSPAN's "Yet another Eighteen Hours with the House of Representatives" but I might thumb through the channels and see what's on, and stick around for 20 minutes on a debate on Net Neutrality.
For shows I watch regularly (The Office, Heroes, House, [adult swim]) I can safely leave all those commercials behind and download and watch the content at my leisure. It's not a complete solution, yet, but with Apple TV coming, and more shows (hopefully, where ARE you House??) showing up on iTunes, as well as movies, I'm at least considering swallowing the bait.
2.) Live Events. I don't want to watch the Falcons game on Monday. I don't want to see NFL Network highlights or re-airs. I want to watch it live. When it's happening, with a chance to pause and rewind it. Same thing with other sporting events. If I can't watch live sporting events I can't fully buy the Apple ecosystem.
And therein lies the rub: if you can't buy ALL of the Apple TV ecosystem, it's way to expensive to buy any of it.
If I could get my TV service from Apple, a la Apple TV and iTunes, I want to see something like this: I spend $30-$40 on basic cable. (you'll pay more for a digital solution) I spend $50-$60 on high speed internet. I spent $400 on my Tivo/service. I watch all the shows I want, that are available, when I want to watch them, including random B.S. that happens to be on, and live sporting events.
I want to repeat that last line, but have the cost ratio look something like this. I spend $30-$50 per month at the iTunes store, including season passes for my most watched shows. I spend $50-$60 on my high speed internet service, no cable, no phone line (use VoIP and Cell) I spent $300 on Apple TV.
As it stands I couldn't continue paying Basic Cable and feeding similar revenue to Apple and Co. That means that Apple would be getting a tremendous portion of the monthly revenue that I had allocated for other people, but I think realistically, my needs as a consumer also include an ability to quickly and cheaply access mind-numbing content as well as live events.
It's getting closer though, and my attempts to completely and totally ditch any and all cable/satellite provider and ALL wired telco companies are sounding less and less far-fetched.
Sundays on/. always reminds of Ed Norton's monologue in Fight Club, when his boss discovers the rules for Fight Club.
It ends with him saying maybe his boss shouldn't bring him every piece of trash he happens to find.
This, and most 'Sunday' driver stories on/., seem to be the same piece of trash.
Really the issues is that PlaysForSure DRM doesn't work on the iPod. That's almost always what the bitchin' is about. Well, it doesn't work on the Zune either. And on the flip side, FairPlay doesn't work on their media players. It's not the Mp3 (or in this case iPhone) player's issue. In this case, Apple doesn't support PFS because 1.) MS has never been very forthcoming in sharing and 2.) When Apple is totally and completely dominating a single market they just don't need second rate technology.
The good news is that the iPod plays Mp3s. First and foremost. Playing a DRM-ed song is just an annoyance that people have to put up with if they want easily acquired legal digital music. I told people for years that the reason I used Napster was because there was no effective alternative. When Jobs opened the iTunes store (before anyone else mind you), I had to pay the piper. If I continued to steal my music at that point, I could claim no moral high ground, and I would have been robbing the artists just as much if not more than the RIAA. So, I started buying music from the iTunes store. Yeah, it's DRM-ed, yeah I'll probably be stuck buying iPods for a long time. What a shame. Fortunately for me, and everyone else, iPods have really been popular and easy to come by.
Stories like this just make me wonder WTF we even show up here for on Sundays. Go back to bed. Wake up later. Watch the playoffs.
As a total Apple fanboy, I completely agree with you.
In fact, I was totally blinded by my normal Apple-gadget-lust that I completely took for granted that it would run 3rd party apps.
The lack of such a feature seems completely at odds with many of the other initiatives Apple has taken part in (Cocoa/Obj-C development enviornment; Dashboard widgets; Podcasting). I get the sense, especially with the spectre of the backdating options hoopla lurking nearby, that the Apple we're seeing now isn't the Apple we're used to seeing.
I turned a blind eye, and argued for the closedness of the iPod/iTunes setup, and many other Steve-esque idiosyncratic issues, but for the first time in my life I find myself wondering if maybe the team shouldn't begin looking for a new coach. Steve's always control issues, and when Apple was in dark times, it took someone to helm the ship so completely. Now though, all I can do is sift through the casualties (Soundjam, Watson, Konfabulator). If Steve really believes that his customers genuinely clueless as to how to install working, not crap, not spyware, 3rd party applications then perhaps I'm in the wrong customer base.
Now if only I could get Linux installed on a machine, I might actually make a switch, if of course, I could ever get a distro installed without a hitch. I've tried between 3-4 Linux installs on various hardware, and the only one that worked was a Debian (headless) install. God dammit.
I'm getting too cynical maybe, but I'm just not satisfied with ANY computer OS vendor out there. Not Windows, Not Linux, and lately, not Mac. The iPhone just brought all of this to a head. Seeing that it didn't run 3rd party apps, I took my annual Macworld savings (this year, around $500 set aside, just in case...) and bought a gun (a Sig Sauer 2340). You see that Steve? You see what you did? I don't believe in anything anymore!
As a former wireless sales representative, I can pretty much tell you this:
None of you really care all that much about the service. It's the phone you are interested in.
First of all, according to market research, nearly all of you are in complete and total denial. The internal company documents that I saw pointed to "Handset Dissatisfaction" as the number one reason for churn (the % of subscirbers lost in a given quarter). People care about the phone they get. They care about it as a fashion accessory and as a social interaction machine.
Here's my favorite part: no one ever admits it.
In fact, if this get enough mod points for people to read it, I can almost guarantee that there's going to be a slew of "Well, that's not why I bought the phone..." posts behind it. No one was honest about it. Being a fan of psychology, I'd often see how much I could make the customers squirm with this issue. I'd show them the phones, we had a bricky Nokia and a black Motorola clamshell (it's a clamshell phone, not a flip; it doesn't flip. it doesn't even half-flip, it opens... like a clam). I would tell the customer that the Nokia had better reception (it does, proven by internal company memos I saw), was more durable (it was, we rarely had any in the return bins, and I had a whole folders' worth of anecdotes about Nokias surviving), and was the phone I recommended to anyone who cared about features and substance over style (it was and still is).
Needless to say, everyone bought the Moto. It was notorious for breaking, had awful signal (a good 2-3 bars worse than the Nokia), a screen that cracked under the slightest pressure (it got SO bad and SO prevalent that the company actually had to begin covering cracked LCDs UNDER WARRANTY for this particular model, if that tells you anything). I couldn't give the Nokia away, and believe me, I WAS. Both phones were allowed to be sold for free (if it was required to close the deal, and it usually was), but I could poise the Nokia as a free phone, and the Moto as costing $50, because of the flip, and people would still pay for it. Even after I told them that I recommend the Nokia for reception and durability.
People gots ta have that flip shorty!
So my point is, while you try and tell us that what you want from your cellular service provider is good coverage, you don't. Not really. Bad wireless coverage is something we've all come to expect, we hardly even notice it anymore, or get bothered because it happens. What really drives customers into the store ISN'T the company, it ISN'T the service, and it damn sure isn't the cost. No, you, the customer, came to see me because I held the key to what you really wanted: a mobile phone that, like your Lexus, told everyone how big your penis really is.
You'll apologize for my overly cynical attitude, but quite frankly if you're a wireless customer that has gone into a retail store, I'm certain you're one of the people I learned to despise so easily while working there. Oh yeah, one more thing while I'm here, hey NUMBNUTS, the phone's not REALLY free! We subsidize the cost. We don't walk out back and pick one off the tree. They cost money. So when you destroy yours within 2 weeks of purchase, maybe the question you ought to ask isn't "Why did I get this for free two weeks ago and have to pay a hundred bucks now?" but rather "Why do I persist in owning things when it's clear that I'm not going to exercise any responsiblity during the course of my ownership?"
God I hate the wireless industry. Go ahead, feed the greed. Go get your RAZR or Chocolate or whatever schlock marketing scheme that you're busy NOT falling for. Trust me, the wireless companies have your number, and they are routinely screwing you in the ass and laughing about it, because you know what? You can't hear them. You're too busy talking on your Treo/RAZR/Chocolate/Blackberry/Sidekick/SLVR.
Whatever. There's not point to this post. There's no way to fix the system, and there's no way to get people to
Clearly you've been smoking the good shit, and missed the quotes from the alleged 'hackers' saying that they wanted to penetrate the aura of smugness surrounding mac users and that the Mac/PC commercials made them want to burn out an eye with a cigarette. Find it here. If you'll ALSO note they claim that the drivers were third-party, but that the vulnerability existed on standard Apple-shipped drivers.
Perhaps if you had paid attention to what they were saying and not to all the hype you would have clearly known the circumstances that they claimed about the vulnerability.
There is a very real, very effective way to accomplish this without circumventing U.S. laws.
Step 1: Find people that you want to wiretap (internationally if that's what you need) Step 2: Obtain a WARRANT from a closed court which has its records sealed. Step 3: ???? Step 4: Stop terrorists.
The only action missing from much of the presidential wiretapping programs is not that they wiretap, but rather they do it without ANY checks and balances. If you'll recall from your high school civics class, checks and balances are part of the strength of our government. Ideally, no one portion can be given undue influence over our entire government. In instances such as this, the courts are not just thrown in there, willy-nilly, just because. They are meant to be put in place as a bulwark to prevent someone from, I don't know, say, going around an wiretapping people without any necessary rhyme or reason.
Does President Bush have reason to wiretap the people he is? Probably. And it's probably effective at doing things that help unearth and stop terrorist cells. I hope so. You can't have reason alone though. People often only behave in ways the think is reasonable, even if it means plowing airplanes into buildings. You can't have an executive that gets to operate by REASON alone. He needs justification, and accountability. Warrants provide that.
So to summarize, you can wiretap whoever the hell you want, but please, pretty please get a warrant first.
Sometimes I'm forced to simply sit back and ask 'what hell are you people talking about?'
By god, I'm paying my ass off for legal education, so I'm going to try and put the kibosh on all this armchair lawyering that always seems to pervade slashdot...
1.) Law != Logic or Reason. Logic and reason is when you sit around and think of things. Law is a collection built around numerous precedents, in the form of rulings, opinions (not the things you have, the things a judge writes about a case, there *IS* a difference), and appeals.
2.) The chronological arrangments of companies using 'Pod' is a secondary concern. Primary is the intent to capitalize off of the name-brand recognition of the iPod. I realize Pod (Line6) and PODS (storage bins) both predate Apple's use of 'pod' in conjunction with a line of digital audio players, but that point is MOOT. Apple isn't claiming ownership of the word 'pod' for chrissakes. Apple is claiming that they own a trademark on the iPod, and anything that attempts to use that brandname recognition for profit is stealing Apple's trademark rights. Clearly anything predating that would not be attempting to capitalize on Apple's good name.
3.) This is not a binary system. Apple doesn't just get to fire off lawsuits, willy-nilly, and next thing you know Line6 and PODS and private citizens who say the word pod are instantly punished! It goes through a test of reasonableness. Again, not *YOUR* reasonableness, but judicial reasonableness, because they are not the same. A judge, the Trademark office, and the attorneys involved will all function as a bulwark against the sort of frivolity that you people seem to think will happen.
4.) Trademark law requires a vigorous defense against those using it, as well as a need to prevent genericide. You can't just lay back and let people get away with capitalizing on your name recognition, because next thing you know, you're watching a commercial for iRiver's new ipod, the h5000. Genericide is, as others have pointed out, a serious issue for trademark holders. There is a brightline, that acts like a tripwire, and once you reach the point that you are percieved as not vigorously defending that trademark, it becomes essentially fairgame. Even so far as having companies call their mp3 players iPods because of the ubiquity of the term.
I'm not even sure why this is news. This is SOP for all trademark holders in the United States. This is not a big deal. You would be doing exactly the same thing if you owned a trademark, otherwise your marketing efforts would be subverted to anyone else who also wished to use your trademarked name.
Legally, your arguments carry no weight whatsoever. Whatever personal and moral points you choose to make, knock yourself out. In terms of law, however, your argument, which seems to indicate a slippery slope (i.e. Nintendo trademarking paper, for Paper Mario, or your inability to start your own frozen vegetable line), is obviously a sensationalist analogy that, in reality, provides the perfect grounds for refutation.
As/. readers, we're so used to dealing with computers, I guess we assume that there is a standard I/O interface for everything, however, the American legal system has judges and advocates that can recognize more than binary distinctions. These people help develop and maintain a common legal standard of 'reasonableness.' People go absolutely batty about 'slippery-slopes' but there is no well-founded precedent for it in legal circles. Can it happen? Sure. Has it really in any sort of meaningful sense of the phrase? No. Why? Because the application of the legal test of 'reasonableness' acts as a bulwark to this sort of nonsense.
A judge would likely throw out a suit from Microsoft against homes with windows (or whatever such nonsense you feel like substituting in there, Nintendo and paper, whatever), however, if Linux had a distro called 'WindowsForFree,' that would be a clear, and *reasonable* attempt to capitalize on the ubiquity of the Windows name.
Apple isn't sending threats to PODS, or to the Invasion of the Pod People. Apple is pursuing trademark rights against other devices in the field. The sift of judicial reasonableness (keep in mind, I use the adjective 'judicial' because judicial reasonableness isn't just walking down the street and thinking things up and *boop* that's reasonable; it is a defined and structured legal test that has been applied for many years) is a battle-tested, tried-and-true, useful method for acting as a bulwark against frivolity.
I mean, seriously, the world is may be headed to hell in a handbasket, but this asanine Orwellian fear needs to be directed in a far more effecient manner. Software patents, I'll grant you, but hell, trademark law hasn't really screwed anything up too badly.
Obviousness is very strictly constructed. In fact, a patent infringer that obtains personal success from their infringing item makes the patent non-obvious. RIM found this out when they argued obviousness against NTP. They claimed NTP's patents were too obvious to be patented (such so that a person reasonably strong in that field would be able to do it on their own). NTP argued, with supporting precedent, that because the Blackberry Service was so successful the concept was non-obvious.
Much of the clamoring for patent reform can be solved by loosening standards that maintain entrenched patents. One way that can be achieved is to open up the definition of obviousness, thus allowing some patents to be more easily overturned. There are hundreds of standards that can be lowered, or opened if you prefer, allowing for more entrenched patents to be overturned.
Yeah, but it's hard to listen to a website that says things like "Apple takes a 35% cut...a huge amount considering how little they have to do." Given their R&D, negotiation between record labels, bandwidth, server hosting, DRM, and promotional material one could easily see how they're providing more than some artists. Unless you find yourself longing for the complex lyrical and musical symphony that is "Hit me baby, one more time"
Even better is their 'plan' for the future. If we're going to live in Homer's so-called 'land of make-believe with fairies and rainbows' why stop their? Wouldn't it be better if angels brought music to me, and love to everyone, and the end of the dollar, and blow-jobs on the house. Whatever. I'm glad I could get this info from a credible news source, like Weird Al, rather than turning to some no-rate talentless hack site like downhillbattle.org
I have not idea how you got modded up +5 Interesting for this.
Your claim is seriously that the Industrial Revolution hasn't changed the 'content of that communication?'
I don't even know how to respond to this. What was the 'content' prior to? What is the 'content' now? Are you talking about interpersonal communications? Are you talking about interaction? You're telling me that an ancient person using the shoreline for navigation will experience just as much culture shock if you put him on a sailboat with an astrolabe as if you put Chris Columbus in the driver's seat of a nuclear powered sub and told him he had enough firepower to obliterate every living thing in Spain, or Italy, or both? That a guy who looks for a point-by-point reference system using land will be equally as awed by a point-by-point reference system using stars as that same star-gazing folk to be told that magical invisible radio waves were being broadcast out of this underwater tude, and bounce back to us as an interpretable signal?
Better yet, think of methods of locomotion. Any person, so far, can experience wind. No matter what time in history, wind has pretty much existed as long as man has. You can't walk outside of your wooden shack in 1400 and experience nuclear fusion, at least not in any recognizable fashion. Wind has pushed things for as long as it has been wind. This is tautological. Nuclear power is not propelled squat that humans can recognize until the past hundred years.
Furthermore, don't you think that instantaneous global communications is pretty important? I mean, if not, why don't you tell the British at the Battle of New Orleans in 1812. Arrest records, debt, photo imaging, RFID, networked databases, you can't disappear in this world anymore. You could 300 years ago. Disappear, and chose a new life, or a new name, in a new place. You could commit the same crimes and different regions, and essentially get away with it.
I mean, according to your argument, Johann Gutenburg might as well have invented Bean-O for all of his effect on history.
Unless you expand your perception to the most ludicrous scales (i.e. Men wanted to shag then, men wanna shag now, ergo, history hasn't changed much) you'll be hard pressed to defend that position.
Jesus, even think of the past hundred years. Explain how little history changes to the soldiers in WWI and WWII when you show them an unmanned drone that can do the job just as well, risking only money.
I remain unpersuaded until you back this with something other than your simple assertion. As a historian you should know how pointless it is to make a claim with no evidence other than your word. Evidence. Reason. Logic. Not 'Just Because.' I'll need to know what 'superficial' means to you, and what these 'superficial changes' are. I'm willing to be a simple ontology will be damning enough.
Oh man, I wish I had some mod points to bump this up higher. I think you've captured the modern American mindset in a simple, easy-to-use phrase. We just can't give them away fast enough, huh?
Some open rebellion period would be nice. I'm a firm believer in power structures being a two-way street, i.e. that it can only be given up, not really taken away, though there are so many open arms to those who would give it. What really gives me the willies is that this will probably pass, and one more little nugget of freedom will be passed through the American intestinal system, into the toilet of government. Personally, I'm always hoping for a population leveling event. Sick? Maybe, but I think it'd help.
I would assume, given your sig, that you already know this isn't the case. This time in history is unique because of the unprecedented level of communication and communication observation ability of most people. If you wanted to get lost in 1890, you could. You can't get lost today. DNA, fingerprinting, mandatory photo IDs, e-mail, telephones, RF communications, purchasing habits. You can be found in America. Sure, if you disappear into some caves in Afghanistan, no one can find you, but the second you plug into the grid in modern America, you're there to stay. Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.
If you want to know the truth, I believe it can be saved, but it's going to take people who aren't self-interested. Or at least not wholly self-interested. I hope to take place in our great political machine, and I suspect that unless things change drastically and quickly, I'll commit political suicide within a few hours. I won't be getting my knob slobbed, but the second I start voting down education funding cuz some wacko Alaskan rep has tacked on an 8.2 million dollar rider to subsidize his mining industry, I'll be hosed.
What happened to the philosopher-rulers that Plato waxed romantic about? That's really where I fear the problem is. The system is too entrenched to be dug out without martyrs. I've happily accepted my future place on the cross, I just hope its not in vain.
Slashdot Mirror
Well there is the fact that it doesn't break any of the existing hacks for the iPhone...
LOL,you actually sent a letter to the CEO?
That's great. I didn't think people actually tried stuff like that... He probably never saw it man, and they never give you your money back anyways. In fact, a retail manager would have probably been more likely and able and willing to credit your account for it.
Anyways, I also think you've misplaced the blame somewhat... I realize that AT&T shouldn't have sent you to collections, but from my understanding I think your anger should be diverted elsewhere:
1.) You. Isn't it your bill? Isn't the snafu going to be listed at the top of it, for the 'several months'? I'm pretty sure you should read those before you blindly pay them. I'm still honestly trying to figure out how this happened. If you kept paying your bill those payments should have been applied to the most past due bills, thus you would, at most, be only a single month behind, which is hardly a 'collections' type of offense.
2.) I thought you said AT&T happily handled their end of the situation, but it was the collections agency that was pestering you and getting on your nerves? But now you're pissed at AT&T? How does that make sense? Because they sent you to collections? Again, I'm not even sure how that's possible, but I'm even less sure how that's possible with you paying attention to the bills more closely.
I realize accepting your responsibility in this situation isn't an easy thing to do, but it's certainly your fault in large part. I believe you've failed to understand why the bill was late (almost all the billing is computerized, and no one gets kicked to collections for a two day late bill; in addition, I don't think AT&T sends ANY active customer to collections, only canceled accounts, but don't quote me), or why it went to collections.
Could it have been handled better by AT&T? Sure, it always can. It could have been handled better by you too.
If you want to 'vote with your dollar' so to speak, don't you think you ought to at least examine the issues?
It's gotta be Nike, and finally, thank god!
We can credit them with tearing down the corporate 'ceiling' for children. They used to be stuck only in sweatshops, but now.... well, now the sky's the limit.
Here's to you Nike!
We're a little hesitant (hopefully, I know the Patriot Act looks bad... well I've got nothing here) to continue to place more and more power in a centralized state authority. I think we're pretty well justified in this belief too. We look at Eastern Europe and Balkanization, and say "Federalism, how hard can it be?" I don't consider your argument fully justified. It doesn't have to be a political indictment, simply just that I don't trust American politicians so I vote them down away from power whenever I can.
Looks like Slashdot got ahold of the Family Guy writing staff. Manatees pushing balloons... U2 doing Spider-Man on Broadway... ha, what WILL they think of next?
As it's been noted before, it's not slander, it's libel.
And a MySpace User does NOT meet the standards required to violate libel laws. And once it's NOT illegal, look at it like this:
He threw a temper-tantrum about it and he's 'The Man' when it comes to shaping the minds and policies governing the youth and education for that institution. That's like doing something absurd like hiring people who like to have sex with little boys as priests.
We had stuff like this that happened at my school, I was usually the principled dissenter, i.e. I knew who did it, what, and why, but I just kept my mouth shut as long as nothing was getting hurt except feelings. It drives those Principals nuts not because it's libel, or even untrue, it drives them nuts because they are often narcissistic power-craving individuals, and it's the perceived undermining of their authority that sends them off the deep end. I am not going to instantly lump this principal in this group, but the principals I've known mostly fall into this category. I knew a few who felt that individual managing and cooperating with students, as well as treating them with a modicum of respect was the best way to 'govern' an educational institution. Most of them though seemed to prefer the 'Bad Cop' role.
Anyways, whatever it was, he apparently didn't like getting made fun of. Instead of approaching the problem in terms of rehabbing his image with his students he decided that what they REALLY weren't getting enough of was discipline, rules, and regulations... Great... I know THAT'S what kept me going in school. Here's an idea ass-nubbins [the principal], if it's striking a chord, maybe you ought to examine your life choices because guess what, you're at a fucking school, and maybe you missed it, but there are always assholes at school that make fun of people. You either beat the shit out of them (if you can, though you usually got in trouble), got better at making fun of them back (usually just leads to the aforementioned fight), or ignore them and cultivate your life and yourself to the best of your abilities and hope that your success is enough to rub it in their faces. There are still assholes in schools today. Apparently now they make fun of the principal. He decided to beat the shit out of them, allegorically speaking. The only problem is that it's going to prompt more ridicule.
It's becoming a situation he can't control. And I think it's funny as hell. I can't tell you how happy I am that it got Slashdotted. I know that's mean, but an entrenched authority like secondary education and its laughable figurehead (the Principal) deserves a good railing against, and often. I can't think of a system so polluted in different ways from top to bottom that can so immediately ruin or salvage our fortunes, and can't help but think that the whole thing needs a big fucking enema. Don't stop till you hit the back of their teeth.
Dude, are you on CRACK?
Mmmmkay, let's say that I grant you every horror story you seem to have concocted about the iPhone, and that it's a horrible, closed platform requiring desktop synchronization and a ritual baby sacrifice. Whatever, nevermind that you have not used/owned an iPhone, and really have only circumstantial evidence to support your claims, let's see why Google's mobile phone offering is superior....
Because it's programmable and network-centric? Man, I'm all for, um, being crazy or whatever it is you're doing here, but seriously, you're comparing an unreleased, only recently announced product from a company that continues to shroud it and its development in secrecy to a product that hasn't been released, hasn't been announced, hasn't even been confirmed except by a cavalier mention of it in a single document, that contains ZERO specifics??
The quote "I'm amazed at how much of an opinion you have on a device that isn't even released yet" doesn't NEED to apply to the iPhone, I wanna know how the hell you can claim to know anything about this mythical GPhone, and how it works without violating any NDAs. And what the hell is this alleged "fact" you've thrown in about Steve Jobs lying about why it's closed? I missed the evidence supporting that claim, and since we're taking so many hits from the CrazyBong, I'm not taking your word for it.
Google has, in the past, released effective, quality products, and have enjoyed commercial success on a global and personal scale. I use Google and Google products, and will continue to in the future. Apple too has earned similar respect from me, as a consumer.
You have just compared two things that you literally have ZERO perception of (other than a picture of ONE of them), much less any actual interaction.
The technology is rapidly approaching a point when I would consider purchasing almost all of my viewed content from Apple.
There are two small issues that I think should be addressed before I ditch Basic Cable, although there are enough perks to make me start thinking about ditching anything above and beyond that.
1.) Free Content.
I know the iTunes store has some 'Free' content that it bandies about, but sometimes I just need to throw the TV on to have something playing in the background. It doesn't have to be high quality stuff, but sometimes I just want to thumb through the channels. I'm not going to buy CSPAN's "Yet another Eighteen Hours with the House of Representatives" but I might thumb through the channels and see what's on, and stick around for 20 minutes on a debate on Net Neutrality.
For shows I watch regularly (The Office, Heroes, House, [adult swim]) I can safely leave all those commercials behind and download and watch the content at my leisure. It's not a complete solution, yet, but with Apple TV coming, and more shows (hopefully, where ARE you House??) showing up on iTunes, as well as movies, I'm at least considering swallowing the bait.
2.) Live Events.
I don't want to watch the Falcons game on Monday. I don't want to see NFL Network highlights or re-airs. I want to watch it live. When it's happening, with a chance to pause and rewind it. Same thing with other sporting events. If I can't watch live sporting events I can't fully buy the Apple ecosystem.
And therein lies the rub: if you can't buy ALL of the Apple TV ecosystem, it's way to expensive to buy any of it.
If I could get my TV service from Apple, a la Apple TV and iTunes, I want to see something like this:
I spend $30-$40 on basic cable. (you'll pay more for a digital solution)
I spend $50-$60 on high speed internet.
I spent $400 on my Tivo/service.
I watch all the shows I want, that are available, when I want to watch them, including random B.S. that happens to be on, and live sporting events.
I want to repeat that last line, but have the cost ratio look something like this.
I spend $30-$50 per month at the iTunes store, including season passes for my most watched shows.
I spend $50-$60 on my high speed internet service, no cable, no phone line (use VoIP and Cell)
I spent $300 on Apple TV.
As it stands I couldn't continue paying Basic Cable and feeding similar revenue to Apple and Co. That means that Apple would be getting a tremendous portion of the monthly revenue that I had allocated for other people, but I think realistically, my needs as a consumer also include an ability to quickly and cheaply access mind-numbing content as well as live events.
It's getting closer though, and my attempts to completely and totally ditch any and all cable/satellite provider and ALL wired telco companies are sounding less and less far-fetched.
Sundays on /. always reminds of Ed Norton's monologue in Fight Club, when his boss discovers the rules for Fight Club.
/., seem to be the same piece of trash.
It ends with him saying maybe his boss shouldn't bring him every piece of trash he happens to find.
This, and most 'Sunday' driver stories on
Really the issues is that PlaysForSure DRM doesn't work on the iPod. That's almost always what the bitchin' is about. Well, it doesn't work on the Zune either. And on the flip side, FairPlay doesn't work on their media players. It's not the Mp3 (or in this case iPhone) player's issue. In this case, Apple doesn't support PFS because 1.) MS has never been very forthcoming in sharing and 2.) When Apple is totally and completely dominating a single market they just don't need second rate technology.
The good news is that the iPod plays Mp3s. First and foremost. Playing a DRM-ed song is just an annoyance that people have to put up with if they want easily acquired legal digital music. I told people for years that the reason I used Napster was because there was no effective alternative. When Jobs opened the iTunes store (before anyone else mind you), I had to pay the piper. If I continued to steal my music at that point, I could claim no moral high ground, and I would have been robbing the artists just as much if not more than the RIAA. So, I started buying music from the iTunes store. Yeah, it's DRM-ed, yeah I'll probably be stuck buying iPods for a long time. What a shame. Fortunately for me, and everyone else, iPods have really been popular and easy to come by.
Stories like this just make me wonder WTF we even show up here for on Sundays. Go back to bed. Wake up later. Watch the playoffs.
As a total Apple fanboy, I completely agree with you.
In fact, I was totally blinded by my normal Apple-gadget-lust that I completely took for granted that it would run 3rd party apps.
The lack of such a feature seems completely at odds with many of the other initiatives Apple has taken part in (Cocoa/Obj-C development enviornment; Dashboard widgets; Podcasting). I get the sense, especially with the spectre of the backdating options hoopla lurking nearby, that the Apple we're seeing now isn't the Apple we're used to seeing.
I turned a blind eye, and argued for the closedness of the iPod/iTunes setup, and many other Steve-esque idiosyncratic issues, but for the first time in my life I find myself wondering if maybe the team shouldn't begin looking for a new coach. Steve's always control issues, and when Apple was in dark times, it took someone to helm the ship so completely. Now though, all I can do is sift through the casualties (Soundjam, Watson, Konfabulator). If Steve really believes that his customers genuinely clueless as to how to install working, not crap, not spyware, 3rd party applications then perhaps I'm in the wrong customer base.
Now if only I could get Linux installed on a machine, I might actually make a switch, if of course, I could ever get a distro installed without a hitch. I've tried between 3-4 Linux installs on various hardware, and the only one that worked was a Debian (headless) install. God dammit.
I'm getting too cynical maybe, but I'm just not satisfied with ANY computer OS vendor out there. Not Windows, Not Linux, and lately, not Mac. The iPhone just brought all of this to a head. Seeing that it didn't run 3rd party apps, I took my annual Macworld savings (this year, around $500 set aside, just in case...) and bought a gun (a Sig Sauer 2340). You see that Steve? You see what you did? I don't believe in anything anymore!
As a former wireless sales representative, I can pretty much tell you this:
None of you really care all that much about the service. It's the phone you are interested in.
First of all, according to market research, nearly all of you are in complete and total denial. The internal company documents that I saw pointed to "Handset Dissatisfaction" as the number one reason for churn (the % of subscirbers lost in a given quarter). People care about the phone they get. They care about it as a fashion accessory and as a social interaction machine.
Here's my favorite part: no one ever admits it.
In fact, if this get enough mod points for people to read it, I can almost guarantee that there's going to be a slew of "Well, that's not why I bought the phone..." posts behind it. No one was honest about it. Being a fan of psychology, I'd often see how much I could make the customers squirm with this issue. I'd show them the phones, we had a bricky Nokia and a black Motorola clamshell (it's a clamshell phone, not a flip; it doesn't flip. it doesn't even half-flip, it opens... like a clam). I would tell the customer that the Nokia had better reception (it does, proven by internal company memos I saw), was more durable (it was, we rarely had any in the return bins, and I had a whole folders' worth of anecdotes about Nokias surviving), and was the phone I recommended to anyone who cared about features and substance over style (it was and still is).
Needless to say, everyone bought the Moto. It was notorious for breaking, had awful signal (a good 2-3 bars worse than the Nokia), a screen that cracked under the slightest pressure (it got SO bad and SO prevalent that the company actually had to begin covering cracked LCDs UNDER WARRANTY for this particular model, if that tells you anything). I couldn't give the Nokia away, and believe me, I WAS. Both phones were allowed to be sold for free (if it was required to close the deal, and it usually was), but I could poise the Nokia as a free phone, and the Moto as costing $50, because of the flip, and people would still pay for it. Even after I told them that I recommend the Nokia for reception and durability.
People gots ta have that flip shorty!
So my point is, while you try and tell us that what you want from your cellular service provider is good coverage, you don't. Not really. Bad wireless coverage is something we've all come to expect, we hardly even notice it anymore, or get bothered because it happens. What really drives customers into the store ISN'T the company, it ISN'T the service, and it damn sure isn't the cost. No, you, the customer, came to see me because I held the key to what you really wanted: a mobile phone that, like your Lexus, told everyone how big your penis really is.
You'll apologize for my overly cynical attitude, but quite frankly if you're a wireless customer that has gone into a retail store, I'm certain you're one of the people I learned to despise so easily while working there. Oh yeah, one more thing while I'm here, hey NUMBNUTS, the phone's not REALLY free! We subsidize the cost. We don't walk out back and pick one off the tree. They cost money. So when you destroy yours within 2 weeks of purchase, maybe the question you ought to ask isn't "Why did I get this for free two weeks ago and have to pay a hundred bucks now?" but rather "Why do I persist in owning things when it's clear that I'm not going to exercise any responsiblity during the course of my ownership?"
God I hate the wireless industry. Go ahead, feed the greed. Go get your RAZR or Chocolate or whatever schlock marketing scheme that you're busy NOT falling for. Trust me, the wireless companies have your number, and they are routinely screwing you in the ass and laughing about it, because you know what? You can't hear them. You're too busy talking on your Treo/RAZR/Chocolate/Blackberry/Sidekick/SLVR.
Whatever. There's not point to this post. There's no way to fix the system, and there's no way to get people to
Meh, you may be right, but I just can't stand the thought of eventually serving a ruling class of cane toads...
Actually I just hope that people who already own Beatles CDs know about the 'rip' part of iTunes... There's really no need to buy them again...
Clearly you've been smoking the good shit, and missed the quotes from the alleged 'hackers' saying that they wanted to penetrate the aura of smugness surrounding mac users and that the Mac/PC commercials made them want to burn out an eye with a cigarette. Find it here. If you'll ALSO note they claim that the drivers were third-party, but that the vulnerability existed on standard Apple-shipped drivers.
Perhaps if you had paid attention to what they were saying and not to all the hype you would have clearly known the circumstances that they claimed about the vulnerability.
1:"Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?" 2:"You wouldn't believe." 1:"Which computer company did you say you worked for?" 2:"A major one."
Ugh, you're missing the point.
There is a very real, very effective way to accomplish this without circumventing U.S. laws.
Step 1: Find people that you want to wiretap (internationally if that's what you need)
Step 2: Obtain a WARRANT from a closed court which has its records sealed.
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Stop terrorists.
The only action missing from much of the presidential wiretapping programs is not that they wiretap, but rather they do it without ANY checks and balances. If you'll recall from your high school civics class, checks and balances are part of the strength of our government. Ideally, no one portion can be given undue influence over our entire government. In instances such as this, the courts are not just thrown in there, willy-nilly, just because. They are meant to be put in place as a bulwark to prevent someone from, I don't know, say, going around an wiretapping people without any necessary rhyme or reason.
Does President Bush have reason to wiretap the people he is? Probably. And it's probably effective at doing things that help unearth and stop terrorist cells. I hope so. You can't have reason alone though. People often only behave in ways the think is reasonable, even if it means plowing airplanes into buildings. You can't have an executive that gets to operate by REASON alone. He needs justification, and accountability. Warrants provide that.
So to summarize, you can wiretap whoever the hell you want, but please, pretty please get a warrant first.
Sometimes I'm forced to simply sit back and ask 'what hell are you people talking about?' By god, I'm paying my ass off for legal education, so I'm going to try and put the kibosh on all this armchair lawyering that always seems to pervade slashdot... 1.) Law != Logic or Reason. Logic and reason is when you sit around and think of things. Law is a collection built around numerous precedents, in the form of rulings, opinions (not the things you have, the things a judge writes about a case, there *IS* a difference), and appeals. 2.) The chronological arrangments of companies using 'Pod' is a secondary concern. Primary is the intent to capitalize off of the name-brand recognition of the iPod. I realize Pod (Line6) and PODS (storage bins) both predate Apple's use of 'pod' in conjunction with a line of digital audio players, but that point is MOOT. Apple isn't claiming ownership of the word 'pod' for chrissakes. Apple is claiming that they own a trademark on the iPod, and anything that attempts to use that brandname recognition for profit is stealing Apple's trademark rights. Clearly anything predating that would not be attempting to capitalize on Apple's good name. 3.) This is not a binary system. Apple doesn't just get to fire off lawsuits, willy-nilly, and next thing you know Line6 and PODS and private citizens who say the word pod are instantly punished! It goes through a test of reasonableness. Again, not *YOUR* reasonableness, but judicial reasonableness, because they are not the same. A judge, the Trademark office, and the attorneys involved will all function as a bulwark against the sort of frivolity that you people seem to think will happen. 4.) Trademark law requires a vigorous defense against those using it, as well as a need to prevent genericide. You can't just lay back and let people get away with capitalizing on your name recognition, because next thing you know, you're watching a commercial for iRiver's new ipod, the h5000. Genericide is, as others have pointed out, a serious issue for trademark holders. There is a brightline, that acts like a tripwire, and once you reach the point that you are percieved as not vigorously defending that trademark, it becomes essentially fairgame. Even so far as having companies call their mp3 players iPods because of the ubiquity of the term. I'm not even sure why this is news. This is SOP for all trademark holders in the United States. This is not a big deal. You would be doing exactly the same thing if you owned a trademark, otherwise your marketing efforts would be subverted to anyone else who also wished to use your trademarked name.
Are you seriously trying to argue this position?
/. readers, we're so used to dealing with computers, I guess we assume that there is a standard I/O interface for everything, however, the American legal system has judges and advocates that can recognize more than binary distinctions. These people help develop and maintain a common legal standard of 'reasonableness.' People go absolutely batty about 'slippery-slopes' but there is no well-founded precedent for it in legal circles. Can it happen? Sure. Has it really in any sort of meaningful sense of the phrase? No. Why? Because the application of the legal test of 'reasonableness' acts as a bulwark to this sort of nonsense.
Legally, your arguments carry no weight whatsoever. Whatever personal and moral points you choose to make, knock yourself out. In terms of law, however, your argument, which seems to indicate a slippery slope (i.e. Nintendo trademarking paper, for Paper Mario, or your inability to start your own frozen vegetable line), is obviously a sensationalist analogy that, in reality, provides the perfect grounds for refutation.
As
A judge would likely throw out a suit from Microsoft against homes with windows (or whatever such nonsense you feel like substituting in there, Nintendo and paper, whatever), however, if Linux had a distro called 'WindowsForFree,' that would be a clear, and *reasonable* attempt to capitalize on the ubiquity of the Windows name.
Apple isn't sending threats to PODS, or to the Invasion of the Pod People. Apple is pursuing trademark rights against other devices in the field. The sift of judicial reasonableness (keep in mind, I use the adjective 'judicial' because judicial reasonableness isn't just walking down the street and thinking things up and *boop* that's reasonable; it is a defined and structured legal test that has been applied for many years) is a battle-tested, tried-and-true, useful method for acting as a bulwark against frivolity.
I mean, seriously, the world is may be headed to hell in a handbasket, but this asanine Orwellian fear needs to be directed in a far more effecient manner. Software patents, I'll grant you, but hell, trademark law hasn't really screwed anything up too badly.
Obviousness is very strictly constructed. In fact, a patent infringer that obtains personal success from their infringing item makes the patent non-obvious. RIM found this out when they argued obviousness against NTP. They claimed NTP's patents were too obvious to be patented (such so that a person reasonably strong in that field would be able to do it on their own). NTP argued, with supporting precedent, that because the Blackberry Service was so successful the concept was non-obvious.
Much of the clamoring for patent reform can be solved by loosening standards that maintain entrenched patents. One way that can be achieved is to open up the definition of obviousness, thus allowing some patents to be more easily overturned. There are hundreds of standards that can be lowered, or opened if you prefer, allowing for more entrenched patents to be overturned.
Yeah, but it's hard to listen to a website that says things like "Apple takes a 35% cut...a huge amount considering how little they have to do." Given their R&D, negotiation between record labels, bandwidth, server hosting, DRM, and promotional material one could easily see how they're providing more than some artists. Unless you find yourself longing for the complex lyrical and musical symphony that is "Hit me baby, one more time"
Even better is their 'plan' for the future. If we're going to live in Homer's so-called 'land of make-believe with fairies and rainbows' why stop their? Wouldn't it be better if angels brought music to me, and love to everyone, and the end of the dollar, and blow-jobs on the house. Whatever. I'm glad I could get this info from a credible news source, like Weird Al, rather than turning to some no-rate talentless hack site like downhillbattle.org
I have not idea how you got modded up +5 Interesting for this.
Your claim is seriously that the Industrial Revolution hasn't changed the 'content of that communication?'
I don't even know how to respond to this. What was the 'content' prior to? What is the 'content' now? Are you talking about interpersonal communications? Are you talking about interaction? You're telling me that an ancient person using the shoreline for navigation will experience just as much culture shock if you put him on a sailboat with an astrolabe as if you put Chris Columbus in the driver's seat of a nuclear powered sub and told him he had enough firepower to obliterate every living thing in Spain, or Italy, or both? That a guy who looks for a point-by-point reference system using land will be equally as awed by a point-by-point reference system using stars as that same star-gazing folk to be told that magical invisible radio waves were being broadcast out of this underwater tude, and bounce back to us as an interpretable signal?
Better yet, think of methods of locomotion. Any person, so far, can experience wind. No matter what time in history, wind has pretty much existed as long as man has. You can't walk outside of your wooden shack in 1400 and experience nuclear fusion, at least not in any recognizable fashion. Wind has pushed things for as long as it has been wind. This is tautological. Nuclear power is not propelled squat that humans can recognize until the past hundred years.
Furthermore, don't you think that instantaneous global communications is pretty important? I mean, if not, why don't you tell the British at the Battle of New Orleans in 1812. Arrest records, debt, photo imaging, RFID, networked databases, you can't disappear in this world anymore. You could 300 years ago. Disappear, and chose a new life, or a new name, in a new place. You could commit the same crimes and different regions, and essentially get away with it.
I mean, according to your argument, Johann Gutenburg might as well have invented Bean-O for all of his effect on history.
Unless you expand your perception to the most ludicrous scales (i.e. Men wanted to shag then, men wanna shag now, ergo, history hasn't changed much) you'll be hard pressed to defend that position.
Jesus, even think of the past hundred years. Explain how little history changes to the soldiers in WWI and WWII when you show them an unmanned drone that can do the job just as well, risking only money.
I remain unpersuaded until you back this with something other than your simple assertion. As a historian you should know how pointless it is to make a claim with no evidence other than your word. Evidence. Reason. Logic. Not 'Just Because.' I'll need to know what 'superficial' means to you, and what these 'superficial changes' are. I'm willing to be a simple ontology will be damning enough.
Oh man, I wish I had some mod points to bump this up higher. I think you've captured the modern American mindset in a simple, easy-to-use phrase. We just can't give them away fast enough, huh?
Some open rebellion period would be nice. I'm a firm believer in power structures being a two-way street, i.e. that it can only be given up, not really taken away, though there are so many open arms to those who would give it. What really gives me the willies is that this will probably pass, and one more little nugget of freedom will be passed through the American intestinal system, into the toilet of government. Personally, I'm always hoping for a population leveling event. Sick? Maybe, but I think it'd help.
Hrm, I do so love the Caribbean... Maybe I'll look into Costa Rica too. Thanks for the tip. ;-)
I would assume, given your sig, that you already know this isn't the case. This time in history is unique because of the unprecedented level of communication and communication observation ability of most people. If you wanted to get lost in 1890, you could. You can't get lost today. DNA, fingerprinting, mandatory photo IDs, e-mail, telephones, RF communications, purchasing habits. You can be found in America. Sure, if you disappear into some caves in Afghanistan, no one can find you, but the second you plug into the grid in modern America, you're there to stay. Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.
If you want to know the truth, I believe it can be saved, but it's going to take people who aren't self-interested. Or at least not wholly self-interested. I hope to take place in our great political machine, and I suspect that unless things change drastically and quickly, I'll commit political suicide within a few hours. I won't be getting my knob slobbed, but the second I start voting down education funding cuz some wacko Alaskan rep has tacked on an 8.2 million dollar rider to subsidize his mining industry, I'll be hosed.
What happened to the philosopher-rulers that Plato waxed romantic about? That's really where I fear the problem is. The system is too entrenched to be dug out without martyrs. I've happily accepted my future place on the cross, I just hope its not in vain.