Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:First world problems. (Score 1) 552

Google "hide itunes." The first result is instructions in getting U2's album to go away from your purchased screen. The only place it will remain is a list of shit you've hidden, accessible from your account screen.

You could also simply download it, and then delete it from your iTunes music list.

Note: this worked even before Apple implemented it's workaround. Apparently music geeks are capable of copious, and creative, bitching on the internet but totally incapable of figuring out the feature-set of a program they claim to love so much that the addition of one album destroyed their lives

Comment: Re:First world problems. (Score 1) 552

Then don't download it.

If it downloads automatically because you specifically told iTunes to download things automatically, hit the "delete" key. This is on your keyboard.

If it didn't download automatically, and you don't like it in your purchases window hit the little 'x' button that appears when you hover your mouse over it to hide it.

But lets be honest here. If you actually used an Apple products you would have known about the delete button. You don't. You're basing your entire case on music geeks bitching about an album they don't like, and when music geeks bitch about albums they don't like they do it artistically. This is a fancy way of saying they exaggerate, ignore all the positives ("I don't care that he's got a great voice, she's not authentic, and no I can't define that word for you;" "Artist X's work is clearly a sensitive tribute to Artist Y, but Artist Z is derivative trash of Artist Y, and no I don't have a rigorous definition of any of those terms, including 'artist;'"), and basically turn bitching and moaning into an elaborate art performance.

Comment: Re:First world problems. (Score 1) 552

So you have a 500 MB data limit on your device, you're using a service that sells 500 MB+ files, and you've got auto-download over your cell phone network enabled? That's not a very smart choice. Your Mom could send a present. You could buy a movie yourself on your Mac or PC, which then auto-downloads to your phone because you're a moron who has auto-download turned on despite his data cap, etc.

It's very hard for me to seriously believe that anyone whose got his settings fucked up that badly is interested enough in technology to have a slashdot account.

It's even harder for me to believe, given the sheer amount of posts describing the album as crap/shit/etc. that the vast majority of complainers would be complaining if Apple had sent them a copy of a new album by their favorite band.

Comment: Re:911 was down for us Friday night (Score 1) 552

Read the post I was responding to.

That guy is not claiming to be grandma with a computer her favoritist grandson set up for her. He's claiming to be the guy in charge of maintaining a network of Mac Minis. As in he's claiming someone pays him to support a specific computing platform: the Mac Mini, He's also claiming that his networked machines had so little free space that 109 MB made a difference in their stability. That is ridiculous BS.

Which means one of two things is true: his network's stability sucked ass, and he's just blaming U2 for it because his boss hates Bono, or he's making the whole thing up.

Comment: Re:911 was down for us Friday night (Score 1) 552

Keep in mind that the OP isn't claiming to be a grandma with no clue, he's claiming that a) he has a network of Mac Minis, and b) it is his job to fix them when something goes wrong. Knowing you need more then 109 MB of swap space is something my everyone who uses Macs seriously for work finds out, because when OS X doesn't have GB after GB of swap space stability collapses.

Comment: Re:911 was down for us Friday night (Score 1) 552


This dumbass isn't claiming he's some end-user who is not familiar with how his computer works. He's claiming he's got a fucking network full of Mac Minis and fixing them is his job. If true, and if his Minis truly have so little swap space that 109.8 MB will fuck them up, they are already fucked up.

Seriously. I have had startup disks with 5-6 GB in free space, and it caused serious stability issues. That's how I found out you need lots of free space.

Comment: Re:When the cat's absent, the mice rejoice (Score 1) 262

Not just statutory. Constitutional.

Investigating his fellow Navy personnel he doesn't need warrants, because the Military can detain it's members without a warrant ("I order you to sit right there"), and extensive powers to search without a warrant ("Show me the contents of your locker Private"). These are covered by the Commander-in-Chief clause, and therefore the Fourth Amendment is irrelevant, which is probably why a Navy cop apparently had no idea why he'd need a warrant.

But the Commander-in-Chief clause does not apply to civilians, so he damn well needed a warrant. If he'd had a somewhat less bullshitty explanation of why he was searching all of Washington state he probably would have been fine -- there's actually a legal doctrine that if the government agent thinks he's within his rights to search you, the evidence doesn't get thrown out just because the agent was wrong -- but "Of course I can do that, I;'m a Federal Agent" won't cut it.

Comment: Re:First world problems. (Score 3, Interesting) 552

You poor baby, you'll have to scroll past an album you don't like. You no longer can tell your little music-obssessed-U2-hating-because-only-peons-like-U2 friends you have no U2 songs. You have to go into a long story about how Evil Apple put music-other-people-like-on-your-computer.

Let's be honest here. If you're this worked up about downloading a single album you don't like, then you're probably actually enjoying being this worked up about downloading an album you don't like. You and your little hobbyist buddies will get more pleasure from complaining about the Evil Apple/U2 conspiracy then you possibly could from anything as trivial as an actual album.

Comment: Re:911 was down for us Friday night (Score 3, Interesting) 552

You're incompetent or lying.

To download the album your Mac Minis would have to a) have iTunes running, and b) have end-users tell iTunes to download the songs. Unlike an iPhone, there is no auto-download setting on a Mac. Hell, I can't even get the "check for Available Downloads" menu option to download new episodes for my season passes to TV shows, I have to load the iTunes store, go to "purchased," and then manually select the TV season/album/whatever I want to download.

More importantly everybody knows Mac OS X needs multiple gigabytes free as memory swap space on it's startup disk. The general recommendation is 15% of the drive. Which means even if you're using the very first, circa 2005, PPC version, of the Mac Mini you should have 6 GB free. The entire U2 album is only 109 MB.

Comment: Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... (Score 1) 526

by NicBenjamin (#47904715) Attached to: Cuba Calculates Cost of 54yr US Embargo At $1.1 Trillion

A couple points:

1) My contention has always been that Cuba acted unusually aggressively in sentencing Gross to 15 years. You disagree, and claim that the 15-year jail sentence is only a "minor deterrent." By disagreeing with my point at all you are (by definition, again), implicitly arguing that there response was not unusually aggressive. Moreover, by using the phrase "minor deterrent" you said flat-out that he should have expected a lot more.

It's pretty fucking dishonest to claim Cuba was only "minorly deterring" foreign agents with a 15-year sentence and then argue he has never implied "a 15-year sentence is not only typical, but minimal."

2) You have repeatedly said Gross was convicted of "attempting to smuggle illegal contraband (after successfully smuggling more in earlier trips), with the goal of overthrowing the Cuban government, financed by a foreign (and openly hostile) country." You have accused gross of multiple separate crimes under Cuban law, and implied that are all perfectly within Cuba's jurisdiction. These crimes are a) being an agent of a hostile power, b) having a goal of overthrowing the Cuban government, and c) smuggling communications equipment. If Cuba could ban a), then the US could legally execute the entire Cuban bureaucracy because they are all agents of a power that is hostile to us. Since we can't do that to them, then any Cuban charges based on Gross's being a CIA contractor are clearly ridiculous BS. The same applies to b). Ukraine clearly can't charge all the Russian soldiers invading it with crimes in Criminal Court, therefore Cuba does not have the right to charge US CIA contractors for plotting it's demise.

Which leaves you with c).

3) The whole problem with your argument is you refuse to think what you are saying. For example this quote:
"What I did claim was that Cuba's sovereignty implies that they have no obligation to carve any exceptions in how they treat their prisoners just because of the passport that the criminal happens to be holding."
Words like "obligation" don't really mean much in relation to a) international law, or b) my argument. Under international law literally no country is ever obligated to do anything. There is no Starfleet sitting in orbit waiting to zap people for non-compliance. The way you zap people for non-compliance is you get pissed at them and ratchet up tensions. Most of the time this fails to get them to change their ways, but it's all we can do until we actually have One World Government with a Starfleet.

In this case, as I have proven, most of what Cuba charged Gross with are things it has no legal right to charge him with. They did it anyway. The remaining charge, smuggling computer equipment (the only thing he did on their soil), is the kind of thing that never results in a prison sentence. The US response to that has to be a cooling of relations, which (in Cuba's case) means and end to embargo-ending talk.

Which means either Cuba is full of people who are dumber then me, or they wanted to eliminate all talk of ending the embargo.

Comment: Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... (Score 1) 526

by NicBenjamin (#47897629) Attached to: Cuba Calculates Cost of 54yr US Embargo At $1.1 Trillion

I don't really disagree with any of that, but it's not terribly relevant to my main point: Cuba had a whole bunch of options for dealing with Gross once they had him on their territory, and they chose the one which would increase tension with the US most. The arrest isn't the problem here. State's arrest eachother's covert agents all the time. The problem is that they can only try the Agent, and sentence him to 15 years in prison, if he's actually subject top their law (for example, if he's accepted their citizenship). Seriously IT NEVER HAPPENS.

If the Cubans had started with negotiations on the terms of imprisonment for the Cuban Five (rather then waiting four years, at which point no country is going to bother to negotiate), or just taken his shit and sat him back on the plane, or damn near anything but come down harder on this guy then African states do when they catch their neighbors plotting regime change; I'd be a lot more sympathetic to their claims to be in favor of ending the blockade.

Something like this always happens. A Democrat wins the White House partly by being soft on the embargo. He makes some noise about reducing the embargo. He doesn't have the power to unilaterally execute every Cuban in Florida above the age of 45, so exile-fucking-with-Cuba continues. And Cuba picks some particularly stupid example of exile-fucking-with-cuba and Responds with the full force available to it. They killed Clinton's attempts at reconciliation by blowing four exiles out of the sky. That's actually what got the Cuban Five arrested, because one of the Five sent the exiles flight plan to Cuba.

Comment: Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... (Score 1) 526

by NicBenjamin (#47897549) Attached to: Cuba Calculates Cost of 54yr US Embargo At $1.1 Trillion

Your entire argument rests on the principle that it is normally accepted practice for sovereign states to imprison each-other's agents for long periods, even for agent's that have not taken citizenship in the country they are attacking. You actually go beyond this, implying that a 15-year sentence is not only typical, but minimal. You state this despite having no examples of it ever happening.

It strikes me that I'm the one who has been over-estimating you. I have clearly proven that a state's sovereignty allows it to do some things to foreign agents (ie: expulsion, threats, execution in war-time, etc.), but not this particular thing (a 15-year jail term). You, rather then do any actual work to defend your position, have argued definitions. And you really suck at it. I mean really. You're doing High School level debate tactics with the felicity of a particularly dim Middle Schooler. Your even worse at this part of the debate then you are at ad hominem. And roadkill is better at ad hominem then you.

For example, you have claimed flat-out that Cuba has the right to ban other country's agents from doing things even when those agents are on their own territory. This is the only way you can maintain that Cuba actually has the right to ban US Agents from plotting regime change in DC. You further claim that anyone who disagrees with you on any of these points is clearly a hypocrite and not giving Cuban sovereignty the same respect he gives US sovereignty. But your definition contradicts itself: if the Cubans have the legal authority to order US officials in Washington DC to stop doing things, then the US also has the right to order Cuban government officials to stop doing things. For example, a US law ordering Cuban officials to stop detaining all political prisoners and Alan Gross is perfectly valid.

Therefore Cuba must not have the right to do anything to US Agents until they enter Cuban territory, or it follows the US has the right to order Cuban Agents around.

Which in turn means that charges against Gross for things he did while in the US (ie: planning to overthrow the Cuban government by computer-aided democracy) are invalid under international law.

Comment: Re:LOL (Score 2) 211

by NicBenjamin (#47894339) Attached to: Congress Can't Make Asteroid Mining Legal (But It's Trying, Anyway)

Why would space colonies want to break away?

Presumably any earth-entity capable of colonizing the far reaches of the Solar system would have to be a fairly important country. It would also offer any thriving colony the local equivalent of a path to statehood. Why secede when you can get two Senate seats?

A lot of SciFi is based on the assumption that future leaders have not learned the lesson of the past. Even the Brits have learned that at some point you off the colony a choice: go independent without a war, or get a vote in Parliament.

The most delightful day after the one on which you buy a cottage in the country is the one on which you resell it. -- J. Brecheux