Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:What were the parents thinking ? (Score 1) 804

You make one major oversight. People, or at least myself, want zero tolerance for actually valid and reasonable rules that happen to coincide with laws. The school has no business telling any kid what they may or may not eat. They can choose what they make available for purchase, but that's it. Can they tell me what brand of mustards are allowed? Its about as meaningful as this 'policy'

Zero tolerance is for things like, violence, gun possesion, possesion of drugs, harassment, cheating, etc, etc.

This isn't a case of people not wanting zero-tolerance its a case of a couple morons trying to legislate what they deem to be proper behavior through policy through the guise of "We are looking out for the children". You are not looking out for the children, you are taking a knee jerk reaction of a moron. (aside what is non zero tolerance on this, you either have a forbidden item or you don't)

What next, outlawing non-mechanical pencils because of splinters and accidents with sharpeners? Telling me which brand of notebook I have to buy?

I love when a principal says something as apathetic as "whether or not I agree with the guidelines". If you are principal and you don't agree with the guidelines you should be taking steps to change them! Either state that you agree with them, or state that you disagree and are or have tried to take steps to make a change in the policy. If you don't have an opinion as the principal who the heck does? Aren't you supposed to be looking out for the well being of your students?

Does this excuse the third grader? In my opinion absolutely, in less you can demonstrate that they clearly understood that having that candy would land him detention (really detention in 3rd grade for that? you really don't have any larger problems in your school to solve?) Are the parents of candy providers to blaim? Yes, they should have known the policy, and if they disagreed they should get together with other parents and file a complaint.

Comment Re:Meh ... Its Apple .. you expected different? (Score 1) 327

A few major problem with your sears comparison. At sears you don't buy a license to put food in a fridge you buy a fridge. You buy a product. A tangible, consumable product.

Software is not a consumable, and iTunes Store isn't selling you anything, they are granting licenses to you. I can't even call it a store, because it really isn't.

The difference here is that Apple has merely positioned itself as a required third party to execute the transaction. They don't produce the product, they don't package it and they don't distribute it in any conventional sense. A distributor purchases products from suppliers and sells them to someone else. In the case of distribution the producer names his price and the distributor pays it or doesn't. What the distributor does with the price next is up to them. A retailer buys from distributers and sells to consumers.
    Apple's iTunes "store" does not do any of this, apple doesn't pay producers up front, they don't maintain an inventory, and they are not buying and selling anything. They are standing in as a middleman, nothing more. In the retail model the author could say "I'm selling you the rights to sell X copies, in return you must pay me 2.49 each" they could mark it up and take the difference or they could mark it down, but they would have to pay him his price regardless. Instead they take the approach of a market place, they maintain no inventory, liability or responsibility for the products, and allow sellers to set the price in exchange for a percentage.
    If iTunes were a retailer I could return defective merchandise to them.. but as you know I can't.

I'm not going to pretend to understand the model that Amazon and other eCommerce sites take in regards to how they obtain their "inventory" and perhaps I should. But the other major difference to me between them and iTunes store is that to get it on the iPhone you have to go the iStore.. no alternative no choice. If amazon charges too much you go to someone else.

granted he can choose to not sell in itunes anymore, which I hope he does. Apple used to be about choice, and the ability to do things differently.

Comment Re:Meh ... Its Apple .. you expected different? (Score 2, Informative) 327

Doesn't understand economics well? What the heck are you talking about. This doesn't require a fancy degree in economics to understand. Apple is shoving its bs down his throat and the result is that he has to increase the price across the board to maintain the same target audience. Which is assinine.

Smells like price fixing to me. "We refuse to allow you to sell your product at the price you want to sell it at" is price fixing. This is anticompetitive behavior at its finest. We won't carry your product if we can't be the ones selling it for the cheapest, and we refuse to sell it at the price you want.

It's not up to you to decide whether he can profit from selling for at cheaper prices, or more expensive prices. It's his product and he clearly has a market at that price. End of story.

Seriously though, you don't like the premise of the article? Wow, thanks for such an astute comment, if only I gave a crap whether you liked it or not. I don't think you understood the premise of the article. Amazon and Apple shouldn't be involved in driving the price anywhere, they are a market place. The people creating the products and the market dictate prices.

Clearly you don't understand economics well. Play the stock market much? I'd love to make a market against you. Next you are going to tell me that competition between NYSE and BATS is going to drive stock prices down. Competition does one and only one thing, it drives prices to their equilibrium and it tighetens the spreads. As long as Apple enforces a $1 interval (which I didn't realize they did until reading this article) you aren't going to see any movement. Go look at tick sizes for$1-$5 equities on Nasdaq or NYSE, I'll bet the farm the tick size is not a dollar.

Yet another way in which I've lost all respect for apple.

Comment Re:Get it Back (Score 1) 332

I'm guessing you've never taken any classes in ethics. A thief is a thief is a thief.

If the person specifically said they couldn't reproduce it and the researchers weren't smart enough to secure that right in the first place, i think the researchers would be fired.

Would people be angry with him? Yes. But he absolutely has the right to make that decision, its his or her body.

Here's a twist, the person was a jehova's witness, and you just happened to get just enough of his blood to test but it was destroyed.. Does that give you the first to forcefully take more from him?

If its such a simple right thing to do then when you go back for permission it will probably be granted. If it was something they never would have agreed to in the first place, why does this matter.

DNA might be a factual thing, but the vessels its found in are not. My blood, my saliva and my cells are mine, they are not yours, they are not the communities.

Granted I'm a liberal, and I don't know what your stance is, but it would only be more ironic if you were a conservative.

Comment simpler way to show it didn't pass (Score 1) 449

To me its far easier to do this:
206 votes total, 2/3 to pass.. which means 1/3 against is the most that can vote against (since they don't mention abstentions and how abstentions are handled).

206 * 1/3 or 206/3 is 68 and 2/3... if more than that vote against it can't pass.
70 is more than 68 2/3 so the vote fails.

If it take their bad shortcut method and say 206 * 0.33 i get 67.98 which is also less than 70 so that vote fails.

jcochran said it similarly. if you think it passed than that means passed voters against * 2 = passed voters... its not.

This is also why I ensure that everyone agrees and records what they believe is the required number of voters for or against to pass / block a decision (when its not a majority wins decision with friends) BEFORE actually voting.

Comment Re:Get it Back (Score 4, Insightful) 332

I would say its no different if its a photograph. A key component of performing valid and recognized research is informed consent. I absolutely expect to control in perpetuity how my photograph / dna / etc are researched. I'm not as concerned with the tools, whether its a magnifying lens or a digital something or other; but what's being searched for is separate.

The fact that you had to use the word "also" as in "also analyze facial morphology" illustrates the line very clearly. I/you/we/whomever didn't consent to that; we consented to body morphology. If you want to analyze it for that come back and get my consent or piss off.

Why do I hold this control? because its my information to start with. I gave you access to it in return for something under some contractual terms.. Now you are trying to change them after the fact without my option or giving me anything in return. More importantly, you are trying to do something I likely would never have agreed to in the first place.

Here's a better example, instead of a photo, let's pretend its my credit card. If I go to the store and buy a widget from you and pay with my credit card, I consent to give you the credit card briefly for the sole purpose of executing this transaction. You are not entitled to copy my number, to run background checks on me, to withhold it from me, to give it to others, or to charge other things to me. I gave it to you to execute a transaction that's it.

So to answer your question I would react that exact same way. I view it no differently than fraud / misrepresentation and potentially breech of contract.

To answer a separate question; the researchers are free to draw whatever conclusions they want no matter what. Whether they are valid conclusions, or have any evidence to substantiate the claim is another story. They are free to analyze these photos in a manner which is consistent solely with advancing the purported goals and activities that are consistent with disclosure, studying for trends that are wholly unrelated to the study at hand which was disclosed does not meet this requirement.

Think about this in the reverse case. Go buy a playstation3 or an iphone, shouldn't it be yours to do with it what you will? Or does Sony/Apple have a right in perpetuity to change the conditions and terms, add and remove functionality as they see fit at any time whenever they like without your consent. Doesn't seem very different to me. You want my data you play by our rules. I'm not giving you my blood, i'm giving you a license to analyze it. Come to think of it more ironically Apple does exactly this in regards to tools now. Apple software "can only be run on apple branded computers" and iphone software can only be written in "approved languages".

Funny, its always important that IP, copyrights, contractual, and privacy rights of corporations is always protected so sternly, but so quickly trampled when they are of an individual, the ones who are actually supposed to be protected by laws.

Comment Re:Ready Pitchforks! (Score 1) 909

hassle and easy != freedom

iphone is not liberating, its not freeing you from anything.

Improved user experience != freedom

you can say that apple "frees" you from certain user interface detractions, but that's it.

fanboy much?

People like you are why we lose our civil liberties everyday.

The movie analogy is pretty bad for a lot of other reaasons. You gain nothing from those concessions. My viewing is not improved because they control the food. Their profits are. My viewing is not affected by their refusal to show porn; if you don't want to watch it don't buy a ticket. Neither of those have any significant impact on the services they offer.

Here's my larger issue. I can produce and sell software for the Mac OS without paying them a dime last time i checked. Similarly I can install what I like. Why is the iphone treated any differently in this regard than a mac or a macbook pro?

Comment Re:Ready Pitchforks! (Score 1) 909

As long as they ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY impose that their store is the only way to get apps on the phone the two are one and the same and can not be seperated. By not allowing any other stores they are controlling all apps on the iphone. Its simple logic.
There does not exist an app which can be installed in compliance to the user license on the iphone (by an end user) which is not an apple's store.

They are directly preventing you from getting an app that they dont deem approvable. Today its porn. Tomorrow its something else. They are absolutely controlling what you do while using their products. They are preventing you from running an app which is deemed to be related to porn, or for that matter "adult content" or anything else they don't like.

Until they allow you to go use a non-apple controlled store where you can put ANY app you like on it, they are doing exactly this.

People with your logical capacity seriously scare me. You lack the ability to connect the dots and put together two simple logical statements. I'm not suggesting that this is remotely on the level of genocide or hitler but here's the parallel. Today they ban porn apps because they say protect the children... Tomorrow they ban apps that don't use apple API X (oh wait this just did this..)... the next day they say "no apps that don't show us source code which we take ownership of"...

Apple is being beyond unethical here; its down right assinine. Their entire platform would be crap if not for the users. The biggest claimed "feature" of the iphone is the app store and its billions of apps. Who created those apps? Third parties.
Now that apple has these apps they are saying you know what, screw the third parties without which our platform wouldn't be popular (imagine an iphone without any apps other than the ones that came installed plus the one-three Apple apps). We are now going to start changing the terms and screwing with them now that we are in a dominant position.

its bull crap, and its why I wont renew my iphone and probably won't by an apple product again. How long until apple applies the app store to the mac as whole? Seriously if its so important to the experience you would think they would have done it there first wouldn't you?

Apple's basic pattern is leech off of open source, polish it up real nice, then lock it down tighter and tighter once it catches on at all, and never contribute anything back. (why do you think they prefer BSD style licenses?) There is nothing extraordinarily innovative about the iPad or iPhone, it took what the Palm Pilot and Palm Smart Phone showed us in the early 90's and just went further with today's hardware capabilities. Heck we saw tablet pc's in the 2000's too.

all i want to know is when does the anti-trust investigation start, they've gotten about as anti-competitive as you can get in the smartphone market if you believe half of what they say.

Comment Re:contact your clients (Score 1) 208

what happens when that 1% get bit is that the 1% gets bit, and potentially that junior whatever gets fired if he didn't investigate the charge sufficiently. No matter what you do there is going to be 1% who do something stupid. There is nothing you can be expected to do to prevent that other than make your best effort.

That's like saying what about the 1% of people who see a charge on their credit card bill that they don't remember making, but see they've been there before and pay it. Ultimately you are responsible for identifying whether you should pay your bill or not.

So all in all i'm not sure what your point is. I agree that 1% might get taken; but at some level if they don't detect they are being billed for something they shouldn't be who can?
    And of what significance is this to the op?

All it needs is 1% for what?

Comment Re:contact your clients (Score 4, Insightful) 208

what are you talking about?

His clients aren't going to the site, the cloners are using the access to third party information obtained through the sites email fraudulently bill them. When old clients (some might not be any more) all of the sudden see themselves being billed for years of service that they never recieved/paid for or got, who do you think they are going to believe?

Someone telling them there is a scam going on, which would explain the behavior?
Or someone telling them ignore him, everything is fine we are just billing you for no real reason?

What happens when they pick up the phone to follow up with a complain?

He doesn't need a way to prove who is to the customers, he has proof that he paid for the site domain originally and needs to contact the third party service providers to get that account cut off and redirected to him

Shame on you for not updating contact information when you let the domain expire. forget the open customer accounts within your 'profile' I'd be willing to bet that all of the transactions and everything else are tied to an account of his OWN with the 3rd parties, and various bad bits of information that have now been stolen the biggest problem is that the third party services are treating the activity as legit.

Comment Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score 2, Insightful) 2424

Which gun law prevents you from getting a gun license, and purchasing a shotgun or something suitable for protecting your home? IANAGE (gun enthusiast) but I feel like the only barrier that the laws really provided was if you expected to walk into a store that minute and walkout with a gun and or a handgun (and some background checks that you aren't a convicted fellon / have outstanding warrants / have otherwise taken choices that resulted in the loss of the privilege to personally own a gun).
    Given that you can get a gun faster than you can get a passport, I'm not sure what your point is other than a general "i hate gun laws because i hate them"

Comment Re:CLID name not specified by caller (Score 1) 258

IANAL but i feel like if I am not originating the call in Mississippi I don't see how I am bound by their laws. The state I make the call from allows it, I am not required to know their state laws, I don't set foot in their state, I don't operate a business in their state. I don't know enough about this to know whats involved in spoofing; but I know enough to know that unless they can prove that you willfully did something, and also that you did so under their jurisdiction I don't see how they can do anything.

As stated this seems like moronic, idiotic, technologically inept old politicians reacting to some knee jerk 'my sister got done scammed by them there telemarketers' and passing a law they know nothing about, have no way to enforce, and which targets the wrong group.

If you don't like caller id then stop paying for it. I don't think i have a single phone that uses it anyhow. Most people's cell phones don't actually do caller-id. They merely cross-reference the number from your contacts list. The last time I had a landline the caller-id wasn't smart enough to even do that; and merely stated names of places where calls were thought to have come from.... So i really dont care at all.

All in all, glad to see where these guys are wasting state money on. With real problems going on they are wasting time and taxpayer money on caller-id spoofing. Really? It's that high up on your agenda?

Comment Re:Link is to autoprint version (Score 1) 4

what i want to know is why is he not forced to sell off his BMW, hdv, wine collection etc as part of his bankruptcy?
overall, fair or not, the guy sounds like a moron. If you make 6 figures have the common sense to put some of it away in savings. Making that kind of money, he should be able to live for several years or more without working. I'm not saying he should be ready to retire today; but really you had no savings, investments, etc? You threw all of your money away on frivelous crap and are acting surprised now?

Should get funnier when his lease expires for the bmw.

where are the mod points when i need them; this story made my day; and your post was even better.

Slashdot Top Deals

"An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of code." -- an anonymous programmer

Working...