Not until the iPhone becomes popular enough or Apple makes more phones that uses the same battery
Apple had the opportunity in designing the phone to choose an existing battery. It irritates me that more manufacturers, not just Apple, don't do this rather than designing Yet Another Battery Pack. 2 or 3 battery pack models, commonly available at $10, would be consumer-friendly. 1000 different proprietary packs at $45 (or worse) is not.
One of these days when I'm really bored, I may just download a generic terminal program and plug in the address.
Go ahead. At worst, their weird little app is using some non-standard commands and you may confuse the back end system... but if it's as flaky as you say, I doubt anyone would ever pin the resulting instability/weirdness/server crash on you. Most likely, your local network people say "this is the only thing that works" because that's what they've been told by the vendor. Clients want accountability in the case of problems, so the vendor will certify just something when in reality any such standard-compliant something would work just as well. YMMV.
Our sysadmin thinks that Norton Enterprise will save us all from ourselves.
OTOH, there does exist the possibility that your IT folk are just flat out flaming idiots.
The US was in a pissing match with the USSR. The embargo was enacted based on "the friend of our enemy is our enemy". The missles were from Russia, based more or less on "WTF do we have to lose?"
It is long time for this cold war bullshit to be over.
40 years after the Cuban missle crisis. 20 years after "Tear down this wall!". 10 years after the Soviet Union dissolved.
Isn't it about time for this piece of cold war bullshit to finally die?
I know this affects other countries as well. Funny, though, that embargo restrictions can be adapted at will for the whims of the politicians. Why not for this?
We have meta-moderation to try to help, but all that does is show that abuse exists; it comes far too late to reverse it properly.
I meta-mod almost every chance I get. I know that my personal meta-moderations are less than a drop in the bucket against over a million users generating thousands of posts and moderations a day, but it does afford me the opportunity to see a good cross-section of moderator activity. From what I see, there's not a lot of onerous, outright abuse - maybe one instance every 2 or 3 meta-mod sessions (3-5%). Considering this is generated by random selection in the population at large, I think this is reasonable.
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Seriously, though, I understand what you're saying, but I feel obligated to point out that in this faith known as Capitalism, it doesn't matter if you believe in corporations. They believe in you.
Well, yeah. I have this nasty habit of arguing the idealistic side of an argument. I understand that reality doesn't fall in line with that nearly often enough, and probably won't here.
I also understand that "ideal" is a matter of perspective. From the label's point of view, the RIAA is like a bulletproof vest - it absorbs the damage of return fire so they don't have to. Were I on the other side of the fence, I'd do exactly the same thing (as far as armor). It is tactically sound. I'd like to think, though, that at the same time I'd spend a little more time on "adapt or die" and a little less time on being a public dickhead, but hey, it's their organization.
But I'm not on that side of this scuffle, so enough with this fair and balanced thing. Battle's on! Burn, baby, burn!
Or remember this - many years ago there was a failure mode in the hydraulics on the 737 that resulted in a rudder lock full left. Almost impossible to correct for. Several crashed before one pilot, in an astounding show of skill, managed to land one. It wasn't until they could get an immediate look at an uncrashed sample that they identified the problem and could engineer a fix.
The model was on the verge of being permenantly grounded prior to this.
There is also the difference that the RIAA is a trade organization, not a completely external organization hired for a purpose. As such, the RIAA is its members (the labels) as much as it is an agent acting in representation thereof. To hold the RIAA accountable, you are neccessarily holding the labels accountable.
This being the case, and to answer your difference, the labels are specifically participating in any wrongdoing that may be going on.
There is also this - membership in the RIAA is voluntary, not compulsory. Any label that has qualms about the behavior of this organization that is representing them is free to drop their membership at any time. Any that do not are voluntarily encouraging and participating in the RIAA's behavior, even if that behavior turns out to be criminal and they find this somehow uncomfortable or inconvenient.
Perhaps because it's rare for any ex-leader to hold office within their party,
I think it falls under "nowhere to go from the top but down". But my statement wasn't about the fact that Bill is retired, it is that Hillary is not, which is equally - or even more - rare. Name one other First Lady to go on to hold an office.
most fancy themselves as an "internationally respected elderly statesmen"
Bill can fancy himself whatever he wishes, I am not obligated to agree. I personally give more credence to character than charisma. YMMV.
are also likely to claim that Hillary is just a "front" so Bill can remain in power.
Who claims this? Bill is a sock puppet. He's a freaking used car salesman ("Have I got a deal for you!"). His thirst for power goes about as far as the hot & cold running hummers, which the Governorship of AK did for him. It's always been Hillary with the higher aspiratons. Getting Bill elected POTUS was just a stepping stone to get her into the public eye. You doubt me? Why do you think she's the one still holding an office?
Imagine taking a canned standard/. joke and using it in an ironic, if obvious, thread. A beowulf cluster of beowulf clusters? Oh, noes! That's teh funny! Or something like that. See also:
More importantly, does she think that a trade association owns the copyrights?
No, she doesn't, BUT, the RIAA is an agent acting on behalf of the label. In that capacity, not only is the RIAA liable for their behavior, the label is on the hook as well. If the RIAA claims this not the case, then all legal actions brought by the RIAA for infringement are falsely represented and that places them on a completely different hook for completely different violations of the law.
Either which way they try to wiggle, this is not a happy place for them, which means it's a very happy place for the rest of us.
Is there honestly no method to simultaneously impeach them? [...] Surely you'd hit a worthy guy eventually.
Sure, we could file charges against the lot at the same time, but each one would be its own case, each with the presumption of innocence of the charges, so any one of the asses might remain.
There is also the limitation that while we can impeach for criminal reasons, we can't impeach based on unworthiness. So if we start that process, we'd have to settle for the first one who wasn't overtly criminal, worthy or not.
But to answer your first question, people keep citing the possibility of "President Cheney" because, failing concurrent trials and convictions, he's the next in line on paper.
Slashdot Mirror
You're suggesting people should RTFM for products they haven't even bought yet? BWAAHAHAHAHAhahaha.. heh... hooooo... oh, you're serious, aren't you?
Apple had the opportunity in designing the phone to choose an existing battery. It irritates me that more manufacturers, not just Apple, don't do this rather than designing Yet Another Battery Pack. 2 or 3 battery pack models, commonly available at $10, would be consumer-friendly. 1000 different proprietary packs at $45 (or worse) is not.
If you don't know what Cmd-Shft-TacoBellGrande is for, GTFO!
If you don't know what Cmd-Shft--- whaddayamean, I forgot to tick "Anonymous"?
AWWWW, FUCK! Delete! Delete!
Go ahead. At worst, their weird little app is using some non-standard commands and you may confuse the back end system... but if it's as flaky as you say, I doubt anyone would ever pin the resulting instability/weirdness/server crash on you. Most likely, your local network people say "this is the only thing that works" because that's what they've been told by the vendor. Clients want accountability in the case of problems, so the vendor will certify just something when in reality any such standard-compliant something would work just as well. YMMV.
Our sysadmin thinks that Norton Enterprise will save us all from ourselves.OTOH, there does exist the possibility that your IT folk are just flat out flaming idiots.
And you suggest that 40,000,000, or 13.5% of the population, is trivial?
This is about 5x the population of the state in which I live. I consider that pretty damned significant.
Fixed it for ya.
Oh, damn, I didn't see the "don't feed the trolls" sign. Sorry.
The US was in a pissing match with the USSR. The embargo was enacted based on "the friend of our enemy is our enemy". The missles were from Russia, based more or less on "WTF do we have to lose?"
It is long time for this cold war bullshit to be over.
40 years after the Cuban missle crisis. 20 years after "Tear down this wall!". 10 years after the Soviet Union dissolved.
Isn't it about time for this piece of cold war bullshit to finally die?
I know this affects other countries as well. Funny, though, that embargo restrictions can be adapted at will for the whims of the politicians. Why not for this?
Dermoosenhastwoncenmeinsisterbitten.
I meta-mod almost every chance I get. I know that my personal meta-moderations are less than a drop in the bucket against over a million users generating thousands of posts and moderations a day, but it does afford me the opportunity to see a good cross-section of moderator activity. From what I see, there's not a lot of onerous, outright abuse - maybe one instance every 2 or 3 meta-mod sessions (3-5%). Considering this is generated by random selection in the population at large, I think this is reasonable.
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Seriously, though, I understand what you're saying, but I feel obligated to point out that in this faith known as Capitalism, it doesn't matter if you believe in corporations. They believe in you.
No, this is not meant to be a Soviet Russia joke.
Well, yeah. I have this nasty habit of arguing the idealistic side of an argument. I understand that reality doesn't fall in line with that nearly often enough, and probably won't here.
I also understand that "ideal" is a matter of perspective. From the label's point of view, the RIAA is like a bulletproof vest - it absorbs the damage of return fire so they don't have to. Were I on the other side of the fence, I'd do exactly the same thing (as far as armor). It is tactically sound. I'd like to think, though, that at the same time I'd spend a little more time on "adapt or die" and a little less time on being a public dickhead, but hey, it's their organization.
But I'm not on that side of this scuffle, so enough with this fair and balanced thing. Battle's on! Burn, baby, burn!
No, no, that's Tourette.
You've never been to a frat party, have you?
Or remember this - many years ago there was a failure mode in the hydraulics on the 737 that resulted in a rudder lock full left. Almost impossible to correct for. Several crashed before one pilot, in an astounding show of skill, managed to land one. It wasn't until they could get an immediate look at an uncrashed sample that they identified the problem and could engineer a fix.
The model was on the verge of being permenantly grounded prior to this.
There is also the difference that the RIAA is a trade organization, not a completely external organization hired for a purpose. As such, the RIAA is its members (the labels) as much as it is an agent acting in representation thereof. To hold the RIAA accountable, you are neccessarily holding the labels accountable.
This being the case, and to answer your difference, the labels are specifically participating in any wrongdoing that may be going on.
There is also this - membership in the RIAA is voluntary, not compulsory. Any label that has qualms about the behavior of this organization that is representing them is free to drop their membership at any time. Any that do not are voluntarily encouraging and participating in the RIAA's behavior, even if that behavior turns out to be criminal and they find this somehow uncomfortable or inconvenient.
I think it falls under "nowhere to go from the top but down". But my statement wasn't about the fact that Bill is retired, it is that Hillary is not, which is equally - or even more - rare. Name one other First Lady to go on to hold an office.
most fancy themselves as an "internationally respected elderly statesmen"Bill can fancy himself whatever he wishes, I am not obligated to agree. I personally give more credence to character than charisma. YMMV.
Who claims this? Bill is a sock puppet. He's a freaking used car salesman ("Have I got a deal for you!"). His thirst for power goes about as far as the hot & cold running hummers, which the Governorship of AK did for him. It's always been Hillary with the higher aspiratons. Getting Bill elected POTUS was just a stepping stone to get her into the public eye. You doubt me? Why do you think she's the one still holding an office?
Enron.
Imagine taking a canned standard /. joke and using it in an ironic, if obvious, thread. A beowulf cluster of beowulf clusters? Oh, noes! That's teh funny! Or something like that. See also:
Neverminding, of course, that I have made my own beowulf joke below. I am so ashamed.
Oh. Well, shit. Nevermind.
The first three words are indeed redundant, but I actually made point there if the mods care to read a little further ;-)
No, she doesn't, BUT, the RIAA is an agent acting on behalf of the label. In that capacity, not only is the RIAA liable for their behavior, the label is on the hook as well. If the RIAA claims this not the case, then all legal actions brought by the RIAA for infringement are falsely represented and that places them on a completely different hook for completely different violations of the law.
Either which way they try to wiggle, this is not a happy place for them, which means it's a very happy place for the rest of us.
There is also this to keep in mind - impeachment is only the bringing of charges. Without a conviction, all you're doing is spending time in court.
Sure, we could file charges against the lot at the same time, but each one would be its own case, each with the presumption of innocence of the charges, so any one of the asses might remain.
There is also the limitation that while we can impeach for criminal reasons, we can't impeach based on unworthiness. So if we start that process, we'd have to settle for the first one who wasn't overtly criminal, worthy or not.
But to answer your first question, people keep citing the possibility of "President Cheney" because, failing concurrent trials and convictions, he's the next in line on paper.