Wearing little buzzy earphones in your ears while moving around may prove to be the 'fad' that dies.
In a fashion similar to lead-based cosmetics and the toxic candies of the late 19th century.
Little buzzy earphones cause significant hearing loss. I, for one, am hoping that the profits that the shareholders currenting making big bucks off Apple stock can somehow be hooked into when the product liability cases for significant hearing loss kick in, as they will before too long. I'd hate to think that the general taxpayer will pay for the damage done.
By "moved on in life," you appear to mean "adopted a strident tone of anti-intellectualism and applied it to science they couldn't be arsed to actually study, conflicting as it did with their personal convictions."
No, I meant that they get a job and move out into the real world.
My portable music player has a 'system' too. I slid open the battery cover and put in another pair of AAA batteries.
I don't have to send it away to anybody. I don't have to hope any company continues to stay in business (except that at least one battery vendor has to continue to produce AAA batteries).
Apple was not competent and capable of designing a product with a robust well-designed battery compartment for user replacement. So they designed a disposable sealed-unit device instead. That is fine. Battery compartments are one of the most expensive parts of case design, and a far more difficult proposition than the level of cosmetic 'industrial design' apple seems capable of. I worked for a company where we spent thousands and thousands of dollars getting the battery compartment to work, remain reliable, and house any battery the user would happen upon in the market.
It doesn't matter that much. Apple is compenent at some other things (marketing, for example).
Yes, and to paraphrase something the guy said earlier to somebody else, Steve Jobs has sunk to 'selling sugar water.'
He's basically done little more than repackage and shuffle things around (repackage NeXTStep, brand it Apple, wrap electronics in shiney plastic cases, kill PPC and convert over to Wintel hardware) in the last decade.
Come election day, and you have very little choice but to do so.
No. You can also acknowledge that no matter what a bunch of hotheads do in special 'argument chambers' established for them to fume and bluster at one another, that the world spins on, and people and entities make the right decisions when presented with the truth.
In other words: quit assuming that 'government' is running things. Perhaps come to an understanding that the world is more complex than that. Throw away your parody opponents and start communicating with those who have the power to institute change. That means 'working within the system,' which is NOT all government. This is sometimes called 'selling out' by those who live in pristine personal fantasylands bounded by their favored idologies.
And any scientific body has a more immediate 'stake' in procuring tenure, keeping their research funding, and maintaining things 'the way they are.' So whatever interest a scientific community might have in the consequences of a human-induced rollback of industrial society is dwarfed by whatever the orthodox 'scientific' hierarchy has grabbed onto as the popular theory of the moment. And at the moment it seems to be orthodox to remain insular and pose the issue as if there's no room for dialogue, just for mandates to be issued against the 'bad Daddy Warbucks industrialists' and other 'profit mongers.'
It's like the only people who stuck around and remained on campus were the people who actually believed the bullshit on the leaflets passed around on the mall. Everybody else moved on in life.
Consider that to the right you would have extremist christians and catholics, people who would, at some point in time, find a way to get rid of anyone who wasn't white.
You live in a really weird fantasy world. Apparently you're a white middle class suburbanite type who doesn't know of the huge 'brown' population of Roman Catholics to the south of the United States.
It's reassuring to know my government is working at a reasonable pace to fix these issues
Government really isn't very good at 'fixing' anything. Goverment power is really a 'last resort' force that should be kept, as much as possible, out of business.
No. My point is that property rights are not an artificial construct. Copyright law is a construct to protect property rights. And the right to privacy ("you have no business having a copy of my poetry") and the right of freedom of association ("I have the right to give copies of my poems to my friends without it meaning any random person on the street now has the right to read them")
And for somebody who seems to champion many flexible definitions (i.e. 'the public good' as served by copyright law) it seems odd that you're now trying to establish a rigid defintion of 'the only true democracy that can exist.' There are obviously people smarter than average who 'know better' than 'the people themselves do.' This isn't an elitist notion, any more than it's 'elitist' to defer to the judgement of a medical doctor in the operating room of a hospital.
The whole American form of goverment is based on the notion that a 'tyranny of the majority' as espoused in a pure 'democracy' can easily lead to abusive government.
And since 'money' is a social construct created for 'the betterment of society,' if social theorists can come up with reasons why society would be better served if the money were 'freed from the grip of the money hoarders,' then we clearly need to back the bank robbers in their liberation struggle.
True but by making it easy for third-parties to search for this problematic code, it can hopefully be fixed and the original coders notified, before the faulty code is melded into the 'code infrastruture' deeply and in ways that make it more difficult to fix.
Your reduction of literature to economics is telling. There are a LOT of people here on Slashdot who have 'scientific' (although economics and all of the other social 'sciences' are hardly real science) snap-phrases to describe social activites in the restrictive way their minds work. It very much 'defines' the whole 'on-line libertarian' mindset, and also a lot of the psuedo-scientific 'fledgling socialist' drivel that gets passed around.
Go play your linquistic analysis games someplace other.
(I purchase most of my SF at used bookstores, since the SF genere was almost entirely ruined by the swirling vortex of sword-n-sorcery drivel that overtook it after Tolkein, and the horrible Space-Western serials related to Star Trek/Star Wars. One of George Lucas' most significant contributions to literature was the near destruction of the speculative fiction genere. It's only recovered in the last decade.)
but once I get it somehow, nothing magically gives you the right to restrict my freedom to do with it as I please.
Actually, the 'somehow' of how you got it could give me the right to significantly restrict your freedom. Indeed, restrict it GREATLY, and it might not involve copyright law at all.
Just like property, it's an entirely artificial construct, created by the society itself to serve the public good.
Look who is talking about artificial constructs! 'The public good' is far more of an artificial construct than any property.
Defined, of course, by the people making up that society
What you're defining there, is a 'tyranny of the majority' also known as mob rule. A tipping point down to fascism in recent history.
And yet you harp on like you're preaching about goodness and light.
'perfect consumers' is just some marketing dude's wet dream.
There are a significant body of us out there in the real world who bemoan the reduction of 'the public' to 'consumers.' Look into it. You'll find there are many thoughtful people who deplore reductive and mechanistic models of the world such as yours.
It's a big complex world out there, and it's not simply made up of 'consumers.' That is a very 'corporate' attitude that many people oppose.
To be fair, at the end of the month, when none of the publishers Opt In, does Google simply become a catalog website for Baen Books and whatever other minor lackluster publishers they hook into the deal?
IOW: does Google fold up the tent and shut-er-down?
Baen is a niche publisher. They very well may publish some good words, but I never hear about them anywhere at all but anecdotally here in Slashdot discussions.
Preachy 'I always look for new Baen titles in the bookstore' comments don't mean very much. You don't find many, do you?
There needs to be some copyright protection but it should never interfere with the good of society.
As defined by whom? Most people who think like you have abstraction notions of what is 'good for society' based on an 'individual versus society' mindset.
There is a notion called 'freedom of association' that comes to play. I am free to associate with whom I wish to and free not to associate with whom I do not wish to. If that means I exclude you from the right to read my poetry, that's just how it goes. Tough crackers. The fact that something is published on a printing press doesn't magically give you the right to read it.
Slashdot Mirror
Wearing little buzzy earphones in your ears while moving around may prove to be the 'fad' that dies.
In a fashion similar to lead-based cosmetics and the toxic candies of the late 19th century.
Little buzzy earphones cause significant hearing loss. I, for one, am hoping that the profits that the shareholders currenting making big bucks off Apple stock can somehow be hooked into when the product liability cases for significant hearing loss kick in, as they will before too long. I'd hate to think that the general taxpayer will pay for the damage done.
By "moved on in life," you appear to mean "adopted a strident tone of anti-intellectualism and applied it to science they couldn't be arsed to actually study, conflicting as it did with their personal convictions."
No, I meant that they get a job and move out into the real world.
The 'copy' command (or 'cp' under NetBSD) is my friend.
dorkaswirl or moobleborp or half a million other kludges are strangers. My momma taught me to be careful when talking to strangers.
They don't have to die. They only need to get a clue and/or grow out of the rather late adolescence which is fashionable these day.
My portable music player has a 'system' too. I slid open the battery cover and put in another pair of AAA batteries.
I don't have to send it away to anybody. I don't have to hope any company continues to stay in business (except that at least one battery vendor has to continue to produce AAA batteries).
Apple was not competent and capable of designing a product with a robust well-designed battery compartment for user replacement. So they designed a disposable sealed-unit device instead. That is fine. Battery compartments are one of the most expensive parts of case design, and a far more difficult proposition than the level of cosmetic 'industrial design' apple seems capable of. I worked for a company where we spent thousands and thousands of dollars getting the battery compartment to work, remain reliable, and house any battery the user would happen upon in the market.
It doesn't matter that much. Apple is compenent at some other things (marketing, for example).
Yes, and to paraphrase something the guy said earlier to somebody else, Steve Jobs has sunk to 'selling sugar water.'
He's basically done little more than repackage and shuffle things around (repackage NeXTStep, brand it Apple, wrap electronics in shiney plastic cases, kill PPC and convert over to Wintel hardware) in the last decade.
You can't, however, own an iPod (at least, an apple branded one- the term has become generic) without using iTunes or an iTunes clone.
I prefer players where you can plug them into the USB bus and just copy files over. And for my 'playlists' I use these things called directories.
Come election day, and you have very little choice but to do so.
No. You can also acknowledge that no matter what a bunch of hotheads do in special 'argument chambers' established for them to fume and bluster at one another, that the world spins on, and people and entities make the right decisions when presented with the truth.
In other words: quit assuming that 'government' is running things. Perhaps come to an understanding that the world is more complex than that. Throw away your parody opponents and start communicating with those who have the power to institute change. That means 'working within the system,' which is NOT all government. This is sometimes called 'selling out' by those who live in pristine personal fantasylands bounded by their favored idologies.
And any scientific body has a more immediate 'stake' in procuring tenure, keeping their research funding, and maintaining things 'the way they are.' So whatever interest a scientific community might have in the consequences of a human-induced rollback of industrial society is dwarfed by whatever the orthodox 'scientific' hierarchy has grabbed onto as the popular theory of the moment. And at the moment it seems to be orthodox to remain insular and pose the issue as if there's no room for dialogue, just for mandates to be issued against the 'bad Daddy Warbucks industrialists' and other 'profit mongers.'
It's like the only people who stuck around and remained on campus were the people who actually believed the bullshit on the leaflets passed around on the mall. Everybody else moved on in life.
Consider that to the right you would have extremist christians and catholics, people who would, at some point in time, find a way to get rid of anyone who wasn't white.
You live in a really weird fantasy world. Apparently you're a white middle class suburbanite type who doesn't know of the huge 'brown' population of Roman Catholics to the south of the United States.
It's reassuring to know my government is working at a reasonable pace to fix these issues
Government really isn't very good at 'fixing' anything. Goverment power is really a 'last resort' force that should be kept, as much as possible, out of business.
No. My point is that property rights are not an artificial construct. Copyright law is a construct to protect property rights. And the right to privacy ("you have no business having a copy of my poetry") and the right of freedom of association ("I have the right to give copies of my poems to my friends without it meaning any random person on the street now has the right to read them")
And for somebody who seems to champion many flexible definitions (i.e. 'the public good' as served by copyright law) it seems odd that you're now trying to establish a rigid defintion of 'the only true democracy that can exist.' There are obviously people smarter than average who 'know better' than 'the people themselves do.' This isn't an elitist notion, any more than it's 'elitist' to defer to the judgement of a medical doctor in the operating room of a hospital.
The whole American form of goverment is based on the notion that a 'tyranny of the majority' as espoused in a pure 'democracy' can easily lead to abusive government.
And since 'money' is a social construct created for 'the betterment of society,' if social theorists can come up with reasons why society would be better served if the money were 'freed from the grip of the money hoarders,' then we clearly need to back the bank robbers in their liberation struggle.
True but by making it easy for third-parties to search for this problematic code, it can hopefully be fixed and the original coders notified, before the faulty code is melded into the 'code infrastruture' deeply and in ways that make it more difficult to fix.
Your reduction of literature to economics is telling. There are a LOT of people here on Slashdot who have 'scientific' (although economics and all of the other social 'sciences' are hardly real science) snap-phrases to describe social activites in the restrictive way their minds work. It very much 'defines' the whole 'on-line libertarian' mindset, and also a lot of the psuedo-scientific 'fledgling socialist' drivel that gets passed around.
Go play your linquistic analysis games someplace other.
Or rather, carry on, since this is Slashdot.
SF is a niche publishing category.
(I purchase most of my SF at used bookstores, since the SF genere was almost entirely ruined by the swirling vortex of sword-n-sorcery drivel that overtook it after Tolkein, and the horrible Space-Western serials related to Star Trek/Star Wars. One of George Lucas' most significant contributions to literature was the near destruction of the speculative fiction genere. It's only recovered in the last decade.)
but once I get it somehow, nothing magically gives you the right to restrict my freedom to do with it as I please.
Actually, the 'somehow' of how you got it could give me the right to significantly restrict your freedom. Indeed, restrict it GREATLY, and it might not involve copyright law at all.
Just like property, it's an entirely artificial construct, created by the society itself to serve the public good.
Look who is talking about artificial constructs! 'The public good' is far more of an artificial construct than any property.
Defined, of course, by the people making up that society
What you're defining there, is a 'tyranny of the majority' also known as mob rule. A tipping point down to fascism in recent history.
And yet you harp on like you're preaching about goodness and light.
A very few.
'perfect consumers' is just some marketing dude's wet dream.
There are a significant body of us out there in the real world who bemoan the reduction of 'the public' to 'consumers.' Look into it. You'll find there are many thoughtful people who deplore reductive and mechanistic models of the world such as yours.
It's a big complex world out there, and it's not simply made up of 'consumers.' That is a very 'corporate' attitude that many people oppose.
Are you sure you don't want to just click on the 'buy this book' link? That's all the article claims. It says nothing about follow-through statistics.
To be fair, at the end of the month, when none of the publishers Opt In, does Google simply become a catalog website for Baen Books and whatever other minor lackluster publishers they hook into the deal?
IOW: does Google fold up the tent and shut-er-down?
Baen is a niche publisher. They very well may publish some good words, but I never hear about them anywhere at all but anecdotally here in Slashdot discussions.
Preachy 'I always look for new Baen titles in the bookstore' comments don't mean very much. You don't find many, do you?
Any publisher that doesn't want people reading books they haven't bought had better not sell them in stores or sell them to libraries.
Some books in the bookstore are shrinkwrapped. It doesn't seem to hurt their sales.
Google Book Search provides online what book stores already can in RL.
Only in the case of some books.
Not wanting people to preview your material is stupid business practice, and bad for consumers and the public.
It's a choice for anybody who publishes a book to make. It's not YOUR choice to make.
On the subject of ROBOTS.TXT, make sure you put the line:
/.wgetrc file.
robots=off
in your
It's a somewhat obscured feature of wget that you have to dig deep in the manpage to find.
There needs to be some copyright protection but it should never interfere with the good of society.
As defined by whom? Most people who think like you have abstraction notions of what is 'good for society' based on an 'individual versus society' mindset.
There is a notion called 'freedom of association' that comes to play. I am free to associate with whom I wish to and free not to associate with whom I do not wish to. If that means I exclude you from the right to read my poetry, that's just how it goes. Tough crackers. The fact that something is published on a printing press doesn't magically give you the right to read it.
Threatening to beat or kill anybody is assault. Actually beating them is battery. Both are crimes.