A LAMP stack is pretty damn lightweight, just like WAMP. Apache just listens on port 80 and processes accordingly, and MySQL/PHP/Perl/Python are only called on a subset of those apache requests. It's not like they're constantly under heavy use, unless you're running an active server in which case a P3 with 256MB of RAM won't come close to cutting it.
Yeah, in order to get any reasonable amount of graphical flair, you need a bit more horsepower, but 2GB/dual core/standalone graphics are overkill for a lot of people's needs even on Vista, though they'll certainly see some added benefit. The biggest speed issues on Vista are caused by all of the bundled crapware you'll find on off-the-shelf systems and bad drivers. Of course, dual core is standard these days and really has been for a decent amount of time now, and RAM is so stupidly cheap that you'd be absolutely foolish not to get at least 2GB, but that doesn't make it necessary by any means.
For all of the problems I did have with Vista, speed was never one of them. I think there were some very poor choices made in terms of the UI (I like Aero, but they took a mile hike backwards with everything that they rearranged, going from illogical in XP to completely nonsensical in Vista) and one of my systems (which was fairly high-end at Vista's release) still can't run Vista stably thanks to nVidia, but even my retired fileserver box has no problems with speed in Vista.
And this is coming from the Mac fanboy. I switch well before Vista came out, but I've got plenty of experience with it - I spent more than enough time dabbling with the old betas, RCs, and of course the actual shipping versions. So could we just get past this? You can't legitimately expect to run a year-and-a-half-old OS on decade-old hardware, and the fact that you can run some very non-demanding apps on that same hardware isn't surprising in the slightest.
And as a developer that somehow got shuffled into sales (don't ask, I still can't figure it out) I wouldn't either. Developers tend to care a lot more about doing things right* so that everyone benefits rather than having their pissing matches. Of course, not having a quota helps too - deadlines are a bit different than losing a significant chunk of your income by not meeting sales goals.
It's probably a natural thing though. Software is designed to help people accomplish something (at least from a developer's perspective), so it makes sense that they'd be less inclined to start selling each other out. Sales jobs are all about personal gain - the "it's good for the company" line is a bunch of BS - they don't give a damn about the company if they're any good, because they know some other company would hire them.
The idea that a new platform needs to be compatible with iTunes is silly.
No, it's not silly at all. iTunes has a stupidly high market share among "jukebox" software thanks to the ubiquity of the iPod - that means that tens if not hundreds of millions of people have their music collections sitting in iTunes, and more importantly they're used to just plugging in their device and syncing music across.
It'll be a significant blow to any music-oriented phone if that isn't present.
I don't necessarily mean that it has to work with the iTunes DRM from the music store purchases. Like you said, most libraries consist primarily of content ripped from CDs or downloaded off of $P2PServiceOfChoice. But given the option, people will likely choose a product that will sync nicely with their existing content. Hell, it was a VERY large part of why I got the iPhone with so many other options out there.
And you should really get more informed about Office support - the iPhone can read Word, Excel, and Powerpoint just fine (as well as the iWork formats), which is more than most phones can say. Plus it now has the native Exchange support. Of course, the only way to get files on there is via an email attachment which is flatly stupid (if that weren't the case, then there'd be no reason not to see editing apps on the device), but there's no reason that can't change.
But look around you. Do you really doubt that half of your co-workers would try to sucker someone, even just to be on the boss's good side?
Of course I doubt it. Half is way too low. Seriously, it's more like 95%. And that was before I had a job working in sales, where I was constantly getting told off for my honesty (I've since left that job; too much of a moral issue among other things).
Most people will do just about anything if they see or can expect some sort of personal gain. I won't go so far to say that someone will be more likely to do something otherwise-immoral if it's at someone else's expense, but I've seen precisely that happen far too often to refute it either.
Giving someone 50% for not doing a damn thing is worse than "A for effort" - it's "10% off passing for doing nothing at all".
Now most schools have 60% as the cutoff for failing rather than 70% (though I'd rather see 70% or higher and have actual standards - the only assignment through my HS career that I didn't skip outright receiving a grade in the 60% range was a quiz of my classmates names a week into the year, and I really didn't put much effort into most of my work).
Most classes have homework every class. My schedule had classes meeting every other day, so roughly 45 lessons per semester per class. You've got more than enough opportunity to make up what you missed - doubly so if you actually talk to the teacher, as they're usually very understanding and helpful if you actually explain what happened and what you'd like to do to correct it. I never once had a teacher deny me an extension on an assignment when I asked, and I likewise could always get an extra credit assignment.
And it works the same way in the real world. Maybe not with the same degree of flexibility, but most people are pretty reasonable IF YOU ASK. If you learn to skate by through nonsensical entitlement throughout high school, you're destined to fail in the real world.
It's the one practical thing I learned from HS. Assorted facts are nice to have when I feel the need to spew trivia at someone, but setting and meeting expectations is something you have to know to survive in the working world - and that can mean changing expectations down the road if something goes south on a project. You'll find yourself out of a job pretty quickly if you can't handle that, so I'd consider it fairly obvious that the same people abusing this system in high school are the type destined to survive off welfare. You're wasting money on their high school career, and you'll waste money on their future existence as a vagrant./cynic
With rare exceptions, most kids who are going to get less than a 50% on something are never going to get the grades in the second semester that will give them a passing grade.
Most students who get less than a 50% don't deserve a passing grade. A for effort is bullshit - if you don't know the material, you shouldn't pass the class.
Maybe it'll help a few people who got a rough start. It'll also allow anyone of even moderate intelligence to coast right through every class. This mentality of doing something that helps a few while creating a massive loophole for everyone else (see: no child left behind) serves no purpose but to accelerate the growth of stupidity. It certainly wouldn't be much of a stretch to call it a government conspiracy (as an educated populace is far harder to swindle and control), especially given what else we've seen happen as a result of this administration.
If you need to ask, then the person probably isn't well suited to entrepreneurship. There can be some crazy time requirements unless you have heaps of cash sitting around to buy other people's time, not to mention the motivation. Most people would prefer the simplicity and security of working for someone else, even if it ends up significantly less interesting or lucrative than pursuing their passion.
True, but the companies that those OSS programmers write their code for still need to have business models. That tends to revolve around support and customization, though Mozilla has taken a rather different approach simply by having an affiliate search as the default search engine in Firefox.
Many companies don't understand this, however. Lots of open-source software is ignored in the commercial market because there's no official support available (ie, money for knowledge, not a forum), and that often results in often-mediocre proprietary software winning out. It actually will work brilliantly IF the software company handles things correctly, but it can also fail abysmally if done wrong.
Of course, in any area where security is an issue, closed-source companies do tend to have the security-by-obscurity thing going for them. Not infallible by any stretch of the imagination, but potentially having a delay before the bug is found by someone in the public could be a plus. Truth be told, it really depends who finds it and what their intent is, both with open and closed-source software. I'm certainly not using that as a point against open-source, but management might.
So... if I buy music on this format (as opposed to CD), I'd be able to just copy the MP3s off to my machine and reuse the card as I see fit, right?
If so, what's the purpose of doing this? If they're trying to do something to kill off the legitimacy of downloads, they'll have to kill off myriad legitimate services like iTunes. We already have CDs, and they're cheaper to produce than memory cards, and quite a bit more versatile when you consider how many pieces of software will rip them into MP3 (or whatever). And the music is of a higher bitrate, etc.
I mean, dropping DRM and their attempts to continue with it is definitely a good thing, but I fail to see the purpose of a new method of delivery when CDs and download services both have advantages over this. I suppose the smaller size as compared to CDs is good for physical delivery and shelf space, but unless it's significantly cheaper than CDs or album downloads, I doubt it'll go anywhere.
I said it's present, not required. That could very easily change with a software upgrade (or downgrade, if you will).
I don't see who would be crazy enough to invest in a media playback format that requires always-on internet connectivity, but that's a separate issue entirely.
Ok. Was it a legit photo, or was it photoshopped? Because I'd rather not have the guy who was shitfaced all through med school as my doctor, thank you very much. And given how many people tend to get sued over a single incident these days, I don't think they'd want to be associated with that either. It may have been done as payback for something, but unless the photo was shopped then it's just another of many risks you take by drinking to the point of passing out. Yes, I know it's college and just about everyone does it, but they're playing one big game of risk management, so what do you expect?
All true, but how familiar are you with the process of getting to photos tagged of someone on Facebook?
Search for person. Scroll through long list until it seems like a match. Click to view profile. "Oh, sorry, you need to be this person's friend to view the full profile". You get the link to view photos of that person (photos in which you've been tagged) on their profile page, and the privacy settings are going to kick in if you try to manually hack the URL.
Yes, if you, the admissions person, is this person's friend (extremely unlikely) or share a mutual friend (slightly less yet still extremely unlikely), you could probably get to the pictures. But as Facebook a) has privacy settings and b) is by far the largest photo sharing site on the web, chances are the only photo the admissions person will see is your profile picture, if that. If you're doing stuff that you know is potentially incriminating and don't have privacy settings on at all, then you're just a damn fool and they'd be wise to keep you out.
If you're not completely careless, there's very little chance of it becoming an issue.
Yeah, but employers (like schools) might get nervous when they spot photos showing the prospective employee/student getting shitfaced. No, they probably don't greatly care about the prospect having a couple (schools might, since underage drinking is illegal whether or not you like it; no sensible employer would care) and having a couple too many.
While I'd agree with most here in saying that what you get up to in your personal time is your own business, it still says a lot about you. Since the employer or school is basically playing a numbers game at the end of the day... the decision isn't that complicated. It may not be priority number one, but it'll be a factor.
Like it or not, underage drinking tends not to be a plus in the eyes of college recruiters - and just because it's socially accepted doesn't make it appropriate. And there's quite a difference between having a drink and drinking, and admissions (or employers) will be much more concerned about the latter.
Obviously photographing most high schoolers having sex (never mind posting it online) is going to get you into a world of trouble thanks to CP laws, and I'm fairly confident it's illegal to take or post pictures of adults having sex without their knowledge and consent. As such, it tends not to be that much of an issue in this kind of situation (and Facebook will rip them offline pretty quickly to boot).
Now I don't agree with them, but it's the world we live in. So I would absolutely say that taking responsibility for one's own actions includes not drinking while underage, and having sex in front of a crowd probably wouldn't be the best idea either. Just because you think that the drinking laws are stupid (I do too, and I don't drink) doesn't stop them from being the laws, so getting shafted by an admissions board could end up being the least of your concerns.
Think about it from their side. If there's space for one more student, and they've got two fairly evenly matched candidates, would you really expect that they would pick the one chugging from a beer bong with his profile pic, or the other one kissing his prom date? The two of them might have had identical nights, but it still says a lot about their character. And for pics that other people took, that's what privacy settings are for.
I don't think you really understood the meaning of responsibility there. If you don't want to be held accountable for doing something, then don't do it. That doesn't somehow translate to doing it in 'private' with the assumption that private means that nobody knows about it.
Just because underage drinking is socially acceptable doesn't mean that it'll be looked upon kindly by an admissions staff - that person most certainly isn't in your social circle. If you live under the assumption that someone out there can learn about everything you do (and these days, that tends to be the case), then chances are you'll avoid doing stupid shit that causes these kinds of problems in the first place. Yeah, it sucks that privacy has all but disappeared, but you'd be foolish to pretend it didn't happen just because you wish that were the case.
Very true, but you also (theoretically) bought one knowing it's capabilities. Or I should hope so, at least. When they first went on sale (when I got one), there were exactly sixteen apps included, and one of them was Settings. There was no App Store, nor was there a promise of one. Of course nobody expected for a second that Apple would let something with so much potential go to waste, but up until the day it was announced you couldn't reasonably claim that you were "owed" one. You bought one (or didn't) knowing what apps were included, and what the limitations may be knowing that's all you got.
And then after months of continual whining *cough*digg*cough*, it was announced and then several months later actually arrived. There was never a promise of any kind of app within the store, etc. It was made quite clear that not everything would be allowed into the store.
What's my point from this? Anyone with a sense of entitlement from the App Store is being completely idiotic. You didn't pay for the thing* - it was added after the fact, and just like the iTunes Store is not all-inclusive.
Don't get me wrong here - I think Apple's being irrational and, lacking a better word, dickish. But at the end of the day, it's their decision to do things that way. I'd love to see an app that deals with multiple email accounts (especially gmail) better than the built-in Mail.app
*at least on first-gen phones, though even on the newer phones you'll still get some debate about buying hardware vs software. As software updates on the iPhone are free, I'm sure Apple would argue that you're paying for the hardware and the software is free, so if you don't get what you like in a software update than you can fuck right off. It's certainly their business model for Macs. The fact that their generally-good software is the REASON you're buying the expensive hardware just makes them more clever than you for not having thought of it first. Now I don't necessarily agree with that approach, but it's what they use.
Naturally, but that's how almost the entire cell industry works. You can get overchanged a couple of times a month for features you rarely use (and get heinously shafted if you end up using them frequently), or you can get overcharged by more once per month for unlimited-use features. See text message plans - $10/mo for unlimited, or 10c each (or whatever). Both are stupidly expensive for what you get, but it's quite obvious that after 100 texts you'd be foolish not to switch off the per-message plan.
That said, £2 ($4) for a day of internet isn't too bad, especially considering that you'll probably pay more than that for a few hours at Starbucks.
If people used that logic, then our Proud To Be Americanâ auto industry would all be terrorists (though we'd probably use it as an excuse to go to war with Japan). Alternately, people would just drive more carefully, or finally call bullshit on nonsense "war"s (terror, drugs, Chinese toys, violent video games, whatever).
I think it's safe to say that America as we know it would fall apart if people started thinking rationally. Which is fine by me, to be honest.
Well, the political definition of liberal fits the dictionary definition of conservative to the letter, and vice-versa. So, basically, taking the right/left side doesn't mean a damn thing. They're just labels for people too lazy to form their own opinion or look at politicians stances on issues.
I'm easy to startle, too. It doesn't mean a damn thing until I start paying a bodyguard to prevent people from startling me. You can be jumpy without having it dominate your life and your actions.
Yes, but jailbreaking isn't unlocking. Most people that do one tend to do the other, but one allows unauthorized apps while the other allows you to use the phone with an unauthorized carrier.
I expect both are a non-punishable breach of contract, but both are indeed legal.
That's not free on Windows - the cheapest DVD playback software tends to run about $30 on top of whatever Windows costs already. Most off the shelf systems come with that software bundled, but you're still paying for it.
I get the feeling that you, uh, don't care much for Linux. I don't really like it either - it has it's place, just not on my desktop (for mostly the same reasons). But let's not be spreading information that's flat-out wrong.
In any case, Linux prides itself on being "Free", not "free" (ie, free speech not free beer). Quite frankly, they're going to need a better selling point if they want to actually see some heavy adoption. But there are a number of distros out there that are monetized in some way or another - usually through the support channel. And if you want to get technical about it, Microsoft basically does the same thing in their books (they just don't give you an option to get a copy without support).
Slashdot Mirror
A LAMP stack is pretty damn lightweight, just like WAMP. Apache just listens on port 80 and processes accordingly, and MySQL/PHP/Perl/Python are only called on a subset of those apache requests. It's not like they're constantly under heavy use, unless you're running an active server in which case a P3 with 256MB of RAM won't come close to cutting it.
Yeah, in order to get any reasonable amount of graphical flair, you need a bit more horsepower, but 2GB/dual core/standalone graphics are overkill for a lot of people's needs even on Vista, though they'll certainly see some added benefit. The biggest speed issues on Vista are caused by all of the bundled crapware you'll find on off-the-shelf systems and bad drivers. Of course, dual core is standard these days and really has been for a decent amount of time now, and RAM is so stupidly cheap that you'd be absolutely foolish not to get at least 2GB, but that doesn't make it necessary by any means.
For all of the problems I did have with Vista, speed was never one of them. I think there were some very poor choices made in terms of the UI (I like Aero, but they took a mile hike backwards with everything that they rearranged, going from illogical in XP to completely nonsensical in Vista) and one of my systems (which was fairly high-end at Vista's release) still can't run Vista stably thanks to nVidia, but even my retired fileserver box has no problems with speed in Vista.
And this is coming from the Mac fanboy. I switch well before Vista came out, but I've got plenty of experience with it - I spent more than enough time dabbling with the old betas, RCs, and of course the actual shipping versions. So could we just get past this? You can't legitimately expect to run a year-and-a-half-old OS on decade-old hardware, and the fact that you can run some very non-demanding apps on that same hardware isn't surprising in the slightest.
And as a developer that somehow got shuffled into sales (don't ask, I still can't figure it out) I wouldn't either. Developers tend to care a lot more about doing things right* so that everyone benefits rather than having their pissing matches. Of course, not having a quota helps too - deadlines are a bit different than losing a significant chunk of your income by not meeting sales goals.
It's probably a natural thing though. Software is designed to help people accomplish something (at least from a developer's perspective), so it makes sense that they'd be less inclined to start selling each other out. Sales jobs are all about personal gain - the "it's good for the company" line is a bunch of BS - they don't give a damn about the company if they're any good, because they know some other company would hire them.
*code posted to DailyWTF excluded, of course.
No, it's not silly at all. iTunes has a stupidly high market share among "jukebox" software thanks to the ubiquity of the iPod - that means that tens if not hundreds of millions of people have their music collections sitting in iTunes, and more importantly they're used to just plugging in their device and syncing music across.
It'll be a significant blow to any music-oriented phone if that isn't present.
I don't necessarily mean that it has to work with the iTunes DRM from the music store purchases. Like you said, most libraries consist primarily of content ripped from CDs or downloaded off of $P2PServiceOfChoice. But given the option, people will likely choose a product that will sync nicely with their existing content. Hell, it was a VERY large part of why I got the iPhone with so many other options out there.
And you should really get more informed about Office support - the iPhone can read Word, Excel, and Powerpoint just fine (as well as the iWork formats), which is more than most phones can say. Plus it now has the native Exchange support. Of course, the only way to get files on there is via an email attachment which is flatly stupid (if that weren't the case, then there'd be no reason not to see editing apps on the device), but there's no reason that can't change.
Of course I doubt it. Half is way too low. Seriously, it's more like 95%. And that was before I had a job working in sales, where I was constantly getting told off for my honesty (I've since left that job; too much of a moral issue among other things).
Most people will do just about anything if they see or can expect some sort of personal gain. I won't go so far to say that someone will be more likely to do something otherwise-immoral if it's at someone else's expense, but I've seen precisely that happen far too often to refute it either.
Giving someone 50% for not doing a damn thing is worse than "A for effort" - it's "10% off passing for doing nothing at all".
Now most schools have 60% as the cutoff for failing rather than 70% (though I'd rather see 70% or higher and have actual standards - the only assignment through my HS career that I didn't skip outright receiving a grade in the 60% range was a quiz of my classmates names a week into the year, and I really didn't put much effort into most of my work).
Most classes have homework every class. My schedule had classes meeting every other day, so roughly 45 lessons per semester per class. You've got more than enough opportunity to make up what you missed - doubly so if you actually talk to the teacher, as they're usually very understanding and helpful if you actually explain what happened and what you'd like to do to correct it. I never once had a teacher deny me an extension on an assignment when I asked, and I likewise could always get an extra credit assignment.
And it works the same way in the real world. Maybe not with the same degree of flexibility, but most people are pretty reasonable IF YOU ASK. If you learn to skate by through nonsensical entitlement throughout high school, you're destined to fail in the real world.
It's the one practical thing I learned from HS. Assorted facts are nice to have when I feel the need to spew trivia at someone, but setting and meeting expectations is something you have to know to survive in the working world - and that can mean changing expectations down the road if something goes south on a project. You'll find yourself out of a job pretty quickly if you can't handle that, so I'd consider it fairly obvious that the same people abusing this system in high school are the type destined to survive off welfare. You're wasting money on their high school career, and you'll waste money on their future existence as a vagrant. /cynic
Most students who get less than a 50% don't deserve a passing grade. A for effort is bullshit - if you don't know the material, you shouldn't pass the class.
Maybe it'll help a few people who got a rough start. It'll also allow anyone of even moderate intelligence to coast right through every class. This mentality of doing something that helps a few while creating a massive loophole for everyone else (see: no child left behind) serves no purpose but to accelerate the growth of stupidity. It certainly wouldn't be much of a stretch to call it a government conspiracy (as an educated populace is far harder to swindle and control), especially given what else we've seen happen as a result of this administration.
If you need to ask, then the person probably isn't well suited to entrepreneurship. There can be some crazy time requirements unless you have heaps of cash sitting around to buy other people's time, not to mention the motivation. Most people would prefer the simplicity and security of working for someone else, even if it ends up significantly less interesting or lucrative than pursuing their passion.
How do you get calls for anything with a sig like that?
True, but the companies that those OSS programmers write their code for still need to have business models. That tends to revolve around support and customization, though Mozilla has taken a rather different approach simply by having an affiliate search as the default search engine in Firefox.
Many companies don't understand this, however. Lots of open-source software is ignored in the commercial market because there's no official support available (ie, money for knowledge, not a forum), and that often results in often-mediocre proprietary software winning out. It actually will work brilliantly IF the software company handles things correctly, but it can also fail abysmally if done wrong.
Of course, in any area where security is an issue, closed-source companies do tend to have the security-by-obscurity thing going for them. Not infallible by any stretch of the imagination, but potentially having a delay before the bug is found by someone in the public could be a plus. Truth be told, it really depends who finds it and what their intent is, both with open and closed-source software. I'm certainly not using that as a point against open-source, but management might.
No worries, I'll provide the summary:
1) Find infidels
2) Find nuclear weapon
3) Combine
So... if I buy music on this format (as opposed to CD), I'd be able to just copy the MP3s off to my machine and reuse the card as I see fit, right?
If so, what's the purpose of doing this? If they're trying to do something to kill off the legitimacy of downloads, they'll have to kill off myriad legitimate services like iTunes. We already have CDs, and they're cheaper to produce than memory cards, and quite a bit more versatile when you consider how many pieces of software will rip them into MP3 (or whatever). And the music is of a higher bitrate, etc.
I mean, dropping DRM and their attempts to continue with it is definitely a good thing, but I fail to see the purpose of a new method of delivery when CDs and download services both have advantages over this. I suppose the smaller size as compared to CDs is good for physical delivery and shelf space, but unless it's significantly cheaper than CDs or album downloads, I doubt it'll go anywhere.
I said it's present, not required. That could very easily change with a software upgrade (or downgrade, if you will).
I don't see who would be crazy enough to invest in a media playback format that requires always-on internet connectivity, but that's a separate issue entirely.
Ok. Was it a legit photo, or was it photoshopped? Because I'd rather not have the guy who was shitfaced all through med school as my doctor, thank you very much. And given how many people tend to get sued over a single incident these days, I don't think they'd want to be associated with that either. It may have been done as payback for something, but unless the photo was shopped then it's just another of many risks you take by drinking to the point of passing out. Yes, I know it's college and just about everyone does it, but they're playing one big game of risk management, so what do you expect?
All true, but how familiar are you with the process of getting to photos tagged of someone on Facebook?
Search for person. Scroll through long list until it seems like a match. Click to view profile. "Oh, sorry, you need to be this person's friend to view the full profile". You get the link to view photos of that person (photos in which you've been tagged) on their profile page, and the privacy settings are going to kick in if you try to manually hack the URL.
Yes, if you, the admissions person, is this person's friend (extremely unlikely) or share a mutual friend (slightly less yet still extremely unlikely), you could probably get to the pictures. But as Facebook a) has privacy settings and b) is by far the largest photo sharing site on the web, chances are the only photo the admissions person will see is your profile picture, if that. If you're doing stuff that you know is potentially incriminating and don't have privacy settings on at all, then you're just a damn fool and they'd be wise to keep you out.
If you're not completely careless, there's very little chance of it becoming an issue.
Yeah, but employers (like schools) might get nervous when they spot photos showing the prospective employee/student getting shitfaced. No, they probably don't greatly care about the prospect having a couple (schools might, since underage drinking is illegal whether or not you like it; no sensible employer would care) and having a couple too many.
While I'd agree with most here in saying that what you get up to in your personal time is your own business, it still says a lot about you. Since the employer or school is basically playing a numbers game at the end of the day... the decision isn't that complicated. It may not be priority number one, but it'll be a factor.
Like it or not, underage drinking tends not to be a plus in the eyes of college recruiters - and just because it's socially accepted doesn't make it appropriate. And there's quite a difference between having a drink and drinking, and admissions (or employers) will be much more concerned about the latter.
Obviously photographing most high schoolers having sex (never mind posting it online) is going to get you into a world of trouble thanks to CP laws, and I'm fairly confident it's illegal to take or post pictures of adults having sex without their knowledge and consent. As such, it tends not to be that much of an issue in this kind of situation (and Facebook will rip them offline pretty quickly to boot).
Now I don't agree with them, but it's the world we live in. So I would absolutely say that taking responsibility for one's own actions includes not drinking while underage, and having sex in front of a crowd probably wouldn't be the best idea either. Just because you think that the drinking laws are stupid (I do too, and I don't drink) doesn't stop them from being the laws, so getting shafted by an admissions board could end up being the least of your concerns.
Think about it from their side. If there's space for one more student, and they've got two fairly evenly matched candidates, would you really expect that they would pick the one chugging from a beer bong with his profile pic, or the other one kissing his prom date? The two of them might have had identical nights, but it still says a lot about their character. And for pics that other people took, that's what privacy settings are for.
I don't think you really understood the meaning of responsibility there. If you don't want to be held accountable for doing something, then don't do it. That doesn't somehow translate to doing it in 'private' with the assumption that private means that nobody knows about it.
Just because underage drinking is socially acceptable doesn't mean that it'll be looked upon kindly by an admissions staff - that person most certainly isn't in your social circle. If you live under the assumption that someone out there can learn about everything you do (and these days, that tends to be the case), then chances are you'll avoid doing stupid shit that causes these kinds of problems in the first place. Yeah, it sucks that privacy has all but disappeared, but you'd be foolish to pretend it didn't happen just because you wish that were the case.
Blu-ray players already have an ethernet jack, that could plausibly be used for this in future if an (in)appropriate firmware upgrade was made.
Though I think the MPAA would care a lot more than the RIAA.
It's also my iPhone (were I to have bought one).
Very true, but you also (theoretically) bought one knowing it's capabilities. Or I should hope so, at least. When they first went on sale (when I got one), there were exactly sixteen apps included, and one of them was Settings. There was no App Store, nor was there a promise of one. Of course nobody expected for a second that Apple would let something with so much potential go to waste, but up until the day it was announced you couldn't reasonably claim that you were "owed" one. You bought one (or didn't) knowing what apps were included, and what the limitations may be knowing that's all you got.
And then after months of continual whining *cough*digg*cough*, it was announced and then several months later actually arrived. There was never a promise of any kind of app within the store, etc. It was made quite clear that not everything would be allowed into the store.
What's my point from this? Anyone with a sense of entitlement from the App Store is being completely idiotic. You didn't pay for the thing* - it was added after the fact, and just like the iTunes Store is not all-inclusive.
Don't get me wrong here - I think Apple's being irrational and, lacking a better word, dickish. But at the end of the day, it's their decision to do things that way. I'd love to see an app that deals with multiple email accounts (especially gmail) better than the built-in Mail.app
*at least on first-gen phones, though even on the newer phones you'll still get some debate about buying hardware vs software. As software updates on the iPhone are free, I'm sure Apple would argue that you're paying for the hardware and the software is free, so if you don't get what you like in a software update than you can fuck right off. It's certainly their business model for Macs. The fact that their generally-good software is the REASON you're buying the expensive hardware just makes them more clever than you for not having thought of it first. Now I don't necessarily agree with that approach, but it's what they use.
Naturally, but that's how almost the entire cell industry works. You can get overchanged a couple of times a month for features you rarely use (and get heinously shafted if you end up using them frequently), or you can get overcharged by more once per month for unlimited-use features. See text message plans - $10/mo for unlimited, or 10c each (or whatever). Both are stupidly expensive for what you get, but it's quite obvious that after 100 texts you'd be foolish not to switch off the per-message plan.
That said, £2 ($4) for a day of internet isn't too bad, especially considering that you'll probably pay more than that for a few hours at Starbucks.
If people used that logic, then our Proud To Be Americanâ auto industry would all be terrorists (though we'd probably use it as an excuse to go to war with Japan). Alternately, people would just drive more carefully, or finally call bullshit on nonsense "war"s (terror, drugs, Chinese toys, violent video games, whatever).
I think it's safe to say that America as we know it would fall apart if people started thinking rationally. Which is fine by me, to be honest.
Well, the political definition of liberal fits the dictionary definition of conservative to the letter, and vice-versa. So, basically, taking the right/left side doesn't mean a damn thing. They're just labels for people too lazy to form their own opinion or look at politicians stances on issues.
I'm easy to startle, too. It doesn't mean a damn thing until I start paying a bodyguard to prevent people from startling me. You can be jumpy without having it dominate your life and your actions.
Yes, but jailbreaking isn't unlocking. Most people that do one tend to do the other, but one allows unauthorized apps while the other allows you to use the phone with an unauthorized carrier.
I expect both are a non-punishable breach of contract, but both are indeed legal.
That's not free on Windows - the cheapest DVD playback software tends to run about $30 on top of whatever Windows costs already. Most off the shelf systems come with that software bundled, but you're still paying for it.
I get the feeling that you, uh, don't care much for Linux. I don't really like it either - it has it's place, just not on my desktop (for mostly the same reasons). But let's not be spreading information that's flat-out wrong.
In any case, Linux prides itself on being "Free", not "free" (ie, free speech not free beer). Quite frankly, they're going to need a better selling point if they want to actually see some heavy adoption. But there are a number of distros out there that are monetized in some way or another - usually through the support channel. And if you want to get technical about it, Microsoft basically does the same thing in their books (they just don't give you an option to get a copy without support).