I've always wonder about that. While I can understand them not advertising the price inclusive of all taxes and fees, one would think that it's reasonable to at least include the ones that apply across all of the states or provinces that you're providing service to. Why the government allows that sort of deceptive trade practice is beyond me.
Indeed. Pretty much everybody that cares about password security is stuck using a password manager anyways. So you may as well use a 20 char password when allowed to. I mean that would only take what like a millennium to break at that rate?
No, it was a rational decision. The material was already available for use on ones MP3 player, by way of CD. One could also own it on vinyl, 8-track and cassette. Given that most of the people that are interested in buying the box set or the more obscure releases, I just don't see it being that irrational.
And given Apple's propensity to damage the marketability of the other tracks on the album, it made a lot more sense than you're suggesting.
But more than that, for quite some time if you bought from the ITMS you were stuck burning it to CD and ripping it to MP3. I can really understand why they'd be so hesitant to trust Steve Jobs.
So, the solution is to sell out? It's assholes like you that ensure that very little quality art will ever be made out of the massive pool of talent which exists. Worrying about selling the stuff pretty much ensures that much of what could be created won't. Either it's commercially nonviable or to time consuming to pay for itself.
I take it you haven't actually listened to the later Beatles stuff. And by that, I mean really, really listened. Because there's some extremely sophisticated stuff going on, particularly in their later work. "Eleanor Rigby" probably sums things up pretty well.
Indeed, the early stuff was mostly pop tripe played to earn the right to be more experimental later on. That doesn't make it bad per se, just not really demonstrative of their talent. Which is typical of the period. It wasn't until later that the music got good.
* - Lennon inspired Harry Nilsson to release some absolutely classic albums
He also caused Harry to blow out his vocal cords and Harry's relationship with the Beatles was ultimately disastrous for him. And narrowly avoided causing similar ruin to the Beatles.
On the whole, it probably would've been better for everybody involved had Harry not met any of the Beatles, as impossible as that ultimately was.
Probably the only "band" I can think of is Harry Nilsson. And that's more of a hypothetical given how self destructive he was once he gained fame. Personal failings aside, he was definitely up there with the Beatles, certainly around them enough for them to corrupt him.
When they were good they were amazing. There was quite a bit of sophistication in Revolver, that being said, a considerable amount of the work was pop dribble and mostly notable in ways that can't really be appreciated by folks looking back.
Unfortunately, they broke up before they really hit whatever high point they were capable of.
You mean anti-big government when it tells you to do something you don't like. Around here the voters voted to ban smoking pretty much anywhere outside of ones own home and well away from doors, windows and vents. It gets ignored, but it was a vote of the people that made it so.
Additionally, smokers are a minority group, the numbers keep going down and at this point it's really questionable as to whether the rest of us really ought to be expected to put up with it. Especially given that smoking has no redeeming qualities.
The reason why cigarettes are banned from bars and such is because of the workers. If it were simply a matter of the patrons, there's ways of handling that. You can seal off the smoking areas and have filters to remove the particulate matter.
Small businesses aren't hiring because big businesses have effectively muscled them out of most markets. Any business that has put a good faith effort into complying with the ADA up to this point has little to worry about. Because most of the things that are likely to result in a suit would already be taken care of.
It's a bullshit argument used by conservatives to imply that regulations are the cause of the uncertainty, when the reality is that it's the incompetence of the Federal reserve and the conservative politicians bending over backwards appease the multinational corporations.
The disabled may be a small portion of the populace, but unless you sell a niche product, that can add up very quickly in terms of sales. Not just to the disabled, but to people that are using browsers that don't support flash, people that don't have a fast connection and people that for whatever reason don't allow javascript to execute on the page.
It's easy to assume that you're throwing away an insignificant number of possible sales, but considering that the cost of compliance is so low, it's almost as stupid as those morons that make sites that can't be used with browsers other than IE or Firefox.
It's worth noting that a significant amount of it was already industry best practice, it's just that a lot of people were ignoring it and serving up overly complicated layouts and flash crap. I remember when I was reading up on HTML and web development nearly a decade ago, there was a pretty clear imperative to do things like avoid frames and give alt text to images.
You can't be expected to develop a site prior to the requirements coming out that's perfectly within them, however a lot of those sites weren't even making a good faith effort at being accessible in the first place. Anything that uses Flash as the only method of navigating the site is definitely not accessible, never was and probably never will be.
Because legal blindness doesn't require a person to be completely blind. They might see well enough to see a red sign on a grey wall, but be completely unable to read it, hence the braille. Emergency signs have the braille on them just for that case, there's nothing you can do that's going to cover all the contingencies.
That's not true. ATMs are specifically designed to be usable by the blind. They beep when numbers are input and some of the newer ones sport headphone jacks for the integrated screen reader.
But, it's not just visual acuity that counts, it's the way that you integrate that with your other senses that makes for the best. Meaning that you're not generally going to rely upon just one of your senses when making a decision. For instance your sense of smell and taste are intimately related and hard to truly divide. Likewise ones vision tends to dim when one is concentrating on listening and vice versa.
If you really want to be overall perceptive, you have to work on balancing and interpreting all the sensory information simultaneously.
That applies to tons of other situations for other reason. Motorcycle riding is a good example. Virtually all of the times when a rider ends up getting creamed it's in a situation that's known to go bad. Left turners being one of the more common. If you wait until you're about to be hit, it's too late, you often can't turn a motorcycle fast enough to avoid it if you're not already on it.
nd, in this case, he's wrong. There are very few significant tech companies that push open internet standards as much as Apple does. Apple was the first major tech company to significantly push for DRM-free music purchases. They strongly support open standards in many ways. Are they perfect? No. No company is so why would anyone expect them to be? But, regardless of their imperfections, there are actually few companies of their significance that are as pro-open standards as they are. Claiming that they are the biggest threat to internet freedom is simply an attempt to get people to pay attention to what you have to say, similar to what Greenpeace did.
Apple pushed for DRM-free music purchases after it had abused the hell out of their position in the online music store business. They had a huge number of exclusives and if you wanted to listen to it away from your computer or laptop you were stuck using an iPod or degrading the sound quality further by burning it to CD and ripping it.
It's easy to be in favor of opening things up once you've managed your way into a stranglehold on the market. Quite a bit harder to get there if you do it the right way.
That's an extremely bad idea. At the end of the day it would end up being exploited by crackers and in the best case it would give people the idea that if they don't secure their computers that somebody will do it for them.
In some parts of the world, they do things like that for lawns. If you don't mow your lawn frequently enough, the local council will have somebody do it for you, then send you a bill for the work. Not saying, I agree with it, but it does work. In meatspace, on the net, there's any number of ways that sort of thing would go wrong.
I don't believe the problem is PEBCAK as we like to think. Browser plugs are a serious issue. They're just not being updated.
To an extent you're correct. The technology has gotten to the point where all sorts of things can be infected and you don't have to download it explicitly to get infected.
However, sandboxing, antivirus software, not clicking on suspicious links and keeping the OS updated is more or less mandatory for anything resembling a secure browsing experience.
I've suggested that in the past and been accused of being elitist. That's how driver licensing came into being. Having people driving around at a whopping 8mph with no other vehicles on the road didn't really require much in the way of regulation. But now that vehicles have to be able to do at least 30 mph in order to cope with even side streets we now license just about all of them. Bikes and mopeds excluded.
Likewise, I think that requiring people to be able to install anti-malware and update their computer is a pretty reasonable minimum requirement. It doesn't really take a lot of time to test for, and would cut down significantly on the amount of trouble on the net. Perhaps a couple other things on top of that, but you don't need to test much more than that.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always wonder about that. While I can understand them not advertising the price inclusive of all taxes and fees, one would think that it's reasonable to at least include the ones that apply across all of the states or provinces that you're providing service to. Why the government allows that sort of deceptive trade practice is beyond me.
Indeed. Pretty much everybody that cares about password security is stuck using a password manager anyways. So you may as well use a 20 char password when allowed to. I mean that would only take what like a millennium to break at that rate?
No, it was a rational decision. The material was already available for use on ones MP3 player, by way of CD. One could also own it on vinyl, 8-track and cassette. Given that most of the people that are interested in buying the box set or the more obscure releases, I just don't see it being that irrational.
And given Apple's propensity to damage the marketability of the other tracks on the album, it made a lot more sense than you're suggesting.
But more than that, for quite some time if you bought from the ITMS you were stuck burning it to CD and ripping it to MP3. I can really understand why they'd be so hesitant to trust Steve Jobs.
So, the solution is to sell out? It's assholes like you that ensure that very little quality art will ever be made out of the massive pool of talent which exists. Worrying about selling the stuff pretty much ensures that much of what could be created won't. Either it's commercially nonviable or to time consuming to pay for itself.
I take it you haven't actually listened to the later Beatles stuff. And by that, I mean really, really listened. Because there's some extremely sophisticated stuff going on, particularly in their later work. "Eleanor Rigby" probably sums things up pretty well.
Indeed, the early stuff was mostly pop tripe played to earn the right to be more experimental later on. That doesn't make it bad per se, just not really demonstrative of their talent. Which is typical of the period. It wasn't until later that the music got good.
* - Lennon inspired Harry Nilsson to release some absolutely classic albums
He also caused Harry to blow out his vocal cords and Harry's relationship with the Beatles was ultimately disastrous for him. And narrowly avoided causing similar ruin to the Beatles.
On the whole, it probably would've been better for everybody involved had Harry not met any of the Beatles, as impossible as that ultimately was.
Probably the only "band" I can think of is Harry Nilsson. And that's more of a hypothetical given how self destructive he was once he gained fame. Personal failings aside, he was definitely up there with the Beatles, certainly around them enough for them to corrupt him.
When they were good they were amazing. There was quite a bit of sophistication in Revolver, that being said, a considerable amount of the work was pop dribble and mostly notable in ways that can't really be appreciated by folks looking back.
Unfortunately, they broke up before they really hit whatever high point they were capable of.
I'm pretty sure that was a reference to MiB.
You mean anti-big government when it tells you to do something you don't like. Around here the voters voted to ban smoking pretty much anywhere outside of ones own home and well away from doors, windows and vents. It gets ignored, but it was a vote of the people that made it so.
Additionally, smokers are a minority group, the numbers keep going down and at this point it's really questionable as to whether the rest of us really ought to be expected to put up with it. Especially given that smoking has no redeeming qualities.
The reason why cigarettes are banned from bars and such is because of the workers. If it were simply a matter of the patrons, there's ways of handling that. You can seal off the smoking areas and have filters to remove the particulate matter.
Small businesses aren't hiring because big businesses have effectively muscled them out of most markets. Any business that has put a good faith effort into complying with the ADA up to this point has little to worry about. Because most of the things that are likely to result in a suit would already be taken care of.
It's a bullshit argument used by conservatives to imply that regulations are the cause of the uncertainty, when the reality is that it's the incompetence of the Federal reserve and the conservative politicians bending over backwards appease the multinational corporations.
How is this dribble insightful?
The disabled may be a small portion of the populace, but unless you sell a niche product, that can add up very quickly in terms of sales. Not just to the disabled, but to people that are using browsers that don't support flash, people that don't have a fast connection and people that for whatever reason don't allow javascript to execute on the page.
It's easy to assume that you're throwing away an insignificant number of possible sales, but considering that the cost of compliance is so low, it's almost as stupid as those morons that make sites that can't be used with browsers other than IE or Firefox.
It's worth noting that a significant amount of it was already industry best practice, it's just that a lot of people were ignoring it and serving up overly complicated layouts and flash crap. I remember when I was reading up on HTML and web development nearly a decade ago, there was a pretty clear imperative to do things like avoid frames and give alt text to images.
You can't be expected to develop a site prior to the requirements coming out that's perfectly within them, however a lot of those sites weren't even making a good faith effort at being accessible in the first place. Anything that uses Flash as the only method of navigating the site is definitely not accessible, never was and probably never will be.
Because legal blindness doesn't require a person to be completely blind. They might see well enough to see a red sign on a grey wall, but be completely unable to read it, hence the braille. Emergency signs have the braille on them just for that case, there's nothing you can do that's going to cover all the contingencies.
That's not true. ATMs are specifically designed to be usable by the blind. They beep when numbers are input and some of the newer ones sport headphone jacks for the integrated screen reader.
But, it's not just visual acuity that counts, it's the way that you integrate that with your other senses that makes for the best. Meaning that you're not generally going to rely upon just one of your senses when making a decision. For instance your sense of smell and taste are intimately related and hard to truly divide. Likewise ones vision tends to dim when one is concentrating on listening and vice versa.
If you really want to be overall perceptive, you have to work on balancing and interpreting all the sensory information simultaneously.
Yes, but can you do it with chopsticks?
That applies to tons of other situations for other reason. Motorcycle riding is a good example. Virtually all of the times when a rider ends up getting creamed it's in a situation that's known to go bad. Left turners being one of the more common. If you wait until you're about to be hit, it's too late, you often can't turn a motorcycle fast enough to avoid it if you're not already on it.
Not necessarily, I've heard of that test or variations of it, but the extra player stuck out like a sore thumb.
nd, in this case, he's wrong. There are very few significant tech companies that push open internet standards as much as Apple does. Apple was the first major tech company to significantly push for DRM-free music purchases. They strongly support open standards in many ways. Are they perfect? No. No company is so why would anyone expect them to be? But, regardless of their imperfections, there are actually few companies of their significance that are as pro-open standards as they are. Claiming that they are the biggest threat to internet freedom is simply an attempt to get people to pay attention to what you have to say, similar to what Greenpeace did.
Apple pushed for DRM-free music purchases after it had abused the hell out of their position in the online music store business. They had a huge number of exclusives and if you wanted to listen to it away from your computer or laptop you were stuck using an iPod or degrading the sound quality further by burning it to CD and ripping it.
It's easy to be in favor of opening things up once you've managed your way into a stranglehold on the market. Quite a bit harder to get there if you do it the right way.
I think he meant it should be "knot" and he's quite right. If we choose the right sort of a knot we can end all sorts of corporate malfeasance.
I think you forgot to point out something about Netcraft confirming it.
That's an extremely bad idea. At the end of the day it would end up being exploited by crackers and in the best case it would give people the idea that if they don't secure their computers that somebody will do it for them.
In some parts of the world, they do things like that for lawns. If you don't mow your lawn frequently enough, the local council will have somebody do it for you, then send you a bill for the work. Not saying, I agree with it, but it does work. In meatspace, on the net, there's any number of ways that sort of thing would go wrong.
I don't believe the problem is PEBCAK as we like to think. Browser plugs are a serious issue. They're just not being updated.
To an extent you're correct. The technology has gotten to the point where all sorts of things can be infected and you don't have to download it explicitly to get infected.
However, sandboxing, antivirus software, not clicking on suspicious links and keeping the OS updated is more or less mandatory for anything resembling a secure browsing experience.
I've suggested that in the past and been accused of being elitist. That's how driver licensing came into being. Having people driving around at a whopping 8mph with no other vehicles on the road didn't really require much in the way of regulation. But now that vehicles have to be able to do at least 30 mph in order to cope with even side streets we now license just about all of them. Bikes and mopeds excluded.
Likewise, I think that requiring people to be able to install anti-malware and update their computer is a pretty reasonable minimum requirement. It doesn't really take a lot of time to test for, and would cut down significantly on the amount of trouble on the net. Perhaps a couple other things on top of that, but you don't need to test much more than that.