Slashdot Mirror

And let us not forget these laws are being made up by the same folks who say ripping your purchased cd to your iPod is illegal. You see,this isn't about "teh evil piratez",this is about getting you conditioned to pay over and over and OVER again for the same crap.

I'm sorry I can't find the link from the studio head(I believe BMI) who said music should be pay per use,just like the old days of jukeboxes. Sadly,the guy was actually serious. Is that what you really want,a CC slot in your iPod so you can pay every time you want to hear a song? Maybe add a CC slot to your radio too? And don't think it can't happen,because our "How much money? Really?" whores in congress would sell out their own mothers for a fat enough check.

If EVERYONE is breaking your law then the law needs to be changed,PERIOD. Or did that "We,the people" part get changed to "We,the corporation" while I wasn't looking? Of course now that they are privatizing prisons this could turn into a win/win for the corps. They can rig the laws for themselves all they want,and when the people naturally break them because they are oppressive,they get paid by the state to warehouse them. Must be good to rule everything.

Here you go. Believe me,I know what you are talking about,as our piano player always wanted "the real thing",that is until I let him play my Korg 01W. The sound,and more importantly "the feel",is like a good Baldwin. And it also has some of the best older organ sounds like the Mog and the old church pipe organs. It also fits easily into the back of any van or car and makes setting up a breeze as there is nothing to tune. Mine cost $3500 new,they sell for like $1500 now on eBay.

The point is,there are ways to get around it. But they do require creative thinking,the ability to compromise,and the ability to adapt. A couple of guys I know that play upright bass have exchanged each others phone numbers and if one is going to be playing in the others city he calls first and if the one whose home city it is isn't using his upright that night he lends it to the other. Musicians will usually be more than happy to help each other out,you just have to spend a little time making the effort.But the simple fact is you can't put the digital genie back in the bottle. Attempting to do so merely makes the majority of every population with Internet access a criminal. Because the *.A.As with the unmitigated greed always take it too far like the one that said ripping your cd is illegal. And finally,you have lost the younger generation,period. They all carry iPods capable of carrying thousands of songs. Do you honestly think they can afford the $40,000 needed to fill it?

No,like the horse and buggy gave way to the car,and 45 RPM records gave way to cd,the old way will pass into history. Unless you are willing to lock up nearly everyone under 30 I just don't see it changing. And their little "breaking copyrights is wrong" ads don't work,as I asked my nephew about it when they got the little propaganda crap in school. He says his class agreed on one thing "total BS put out by greedy pigs." Because the young ones are a hell of a lot smarter and more cynical that we were when we were young. And they can smell BS from a mile away,LOL. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

According to this article, Rome was city used by MIT researchers to create real-time maps of people moving around the city.

As you sit in your car amongst thousands of others, sweating even as the AC chugs, the question lingers: how can you remove traffic from your life? Researchers from MIT may have the answer: starting in Rome, they're using data from mobile phone networks to create real time maps of people moving around the city, giving commuters a more detailed, wide-ranging view of traffic conditions -- everywhere, not just on major roads and highways.

Essentially, with all of the GPS devices in taxis, buses, and mobile phones spread about the city, the researchers are attempting to create algorithms that can give drivers a comprehensive look at any part of the city, directing them away from traffic and accounting for the ebb and flow of congestion in real time.

This story was covered by the BBC

If I cry like an iPhone user, can I get a free upgrade from Vista?

One of the arguments of the movie "Loose Change" is the inability to make cellphone calls inflight. There has been some arguing that "Loose Change" was blowing smoke...Then why, 6 years after 9/11 is there an article that could verify "Loose Change ('s)" argument? Feel free to read for yourself. The way I see it, the technology wasn't really available back then. Read for yourself...

In-Flight Cell Phone Calls a Reality Posted Apr 20th 2007 1:45PM by Terrence O'Brien
Filed under: Cell Phones

The death knell has tolled for one of the last lone cell phone-free frontiers on Earth -- or above it, actually. Beginning in July Air France will begin piloting a six month program (pun fully intended) that will allow travelers to send and receive text messages and emails from cellular devices. After three months, though, the true horror begins as passengers will be permitted to talk on their phones. During the trial, questionnaires will be handed out to passengers after each flight to gather feedback. The service, which is only being tested on Air France's short-haul A318 aircraft, works by having an antenna run the length of the plane. Calls and data transmissions made on board are sent to a satellite, then beamed back down to ground. In-flight calls are expected to cost $2.50, while a price has yet to be announced for emails and text messages. So what of all that fuss about cell phones and other wireless devices interfering with a plane's navigational systems? In 2004, the FCC and FAA began testing cell phones on planes, but to date has been unable to determine if they pose any danger or not. According to Computer World, the ban is still in place in the U.S. for a variety of reasons, chiefly politics and concerns that in-flight calls could cause technical troubles for cell networks on the ground.

http://www.switched.com/2007/04/20/in-flight-cell-phone-calls-a-reality/

In-Flight Cell Phone Use Moves Forward in Europe
Posted Oct 18th 2007 8:35AM
by Tim Stevens
Filed under: Cell Phones

The plight of in-flight cell phone use has been more turbulent than the last time we flew from Philly to NY in the middle of a blizzard. Airborne cell use was looking promising at one point in the US, but the FCC has been staunchly against the idea. That said, earlier this year, things started looked promising in the European Union, and now are looking even better, with regulators requesting the introduction of technology that would allow for safe mid-flight calling on European flights. Not wanting to have to hear the babbling of your fellow passengers while you're trying to sleep through that red-eye out of LAX is a perfectly valid reason for not wanting in-flight cell phone use, but the real reason it's currently disallowed is safety. Studies have shown that phones have the potential to mess with an aircraft's navigation systems, meaning your pilot might think he's making a safe landing at a runway while actually lining up over a cow pasture. To prevent this, the system proposed in Europe would place transmitters on the aircraft themselves, allowing calls to be safely routed by the plane to a satellite and then back down to the terrestrial phone system. The problem with this approach is, of course, that it will require the installation of hardware on planes before calls would be allowed. No estimated costs have been given at this point, but we can only imagine what sort of extra fees you'd see on your cell bill (and plane ticket) if you were, say, to pull out your iPhone mid-flight and make a few calls over Spain. We've already seen what kind of bills you can get there when you stay on the ground.

http://www.switched.com/2007/10/18/in-flight-cell-phone-use-moves-forward-in-europe/

One of the arguments of the movie "Loose Change" is the inability to make cellphone calls inflight. There has been some arguing that "Loose Change" was blowing smoke...Then why, 6 years after 9/11 is there an article that could verify "Loose Change ('s)" argument? Feel free to read for yourself. The way I see it, the technology wasn't really available back then. Read for yourself...

In-Flight Cell Phone Calls a Reality Posted Apr 20th 2007 1:45PM by Terrence O'Brien
Filed under: Cell Phones

The death knell has tolled for one of the last lone cell phone-free frontiers on Earth -- or above it, actually. Beginning in July Air France will begin piloting a six month program (pun fully intended) that will allow travelers to send and receive text messages and emails from cellular devices. After three months, though, the true horror begins as passengers will be permitted to talk on their phones. During the trial, questionnaires will be handed out to passengers after each flight to gather feedback. The service, which is only being tested on Air France's short-haul A318 aircraft, works by having an antenna run the length of the plane. Calls and data transmissions made on board are sent to a satellite, then beamed back down to ground. In-flight calls are expected to cost $2.50, while a price has yet to be announced for emails and text messages. So what of all that fuss about cell phones and other wireless devices interfering with a plane's navigational systems? In 2004, the FCC and FAA began testing cell phones on planes, but to date has been unable to determine if they pose any danger or not. According to Computer World, the ban is still in place in the U.S. for a variety of reasons, chiefly politics and concerns that in-flight calls could cause technical troubles for cell networks on the ground.

http://www.switched.com/2007/04/20/in-flight-cell-phone-calls-a-reality/

In-Flight Cell Phone Use Moves Forward in Europe
Posted Oct 18th 2007 8:35AM
by Tim Stevens
Filed under: Cell Phones

The plight of in-flight cell phone use has been more turbulent than the last time we flew from Philly to NY in the middle of a blizzard. Airborne cell use was looking promising at one point in the US, but the FCC has been staunchly against the idea. That said, earlier this year, things started looked promising in the European Union, and now are looking even better, with regulators requesting the introduction of technology that would allow for safe mid-flight calling on European flights. Not wanting to have to hear the babbling of your fellow passengers while you're trying to sleep through that red-eye out of LAX is a perfectly valid reason for not wanting in-flight cell phone use, but the real reason it's currently disallowed is safety. Studies have shown that phones have the potential to mess with an aircraft's navigation systems, meaning your pilot might think he's making a safe landing at a runway while actually lining up over a cow pasture. To prevent this, the system proposed in Europe would place transmitters on the aircraft themselves, allowing calls to be safely routed by the plane to a satellite and then back down to the terrestrial phone system. The problem with this approach is, of course, that it will require the installation of hardware on planes before calls would be allowed. No estimated costs have been given at this point, but we can only imagine what sort of extra fees you'd see on your cell bill (and plane ticket) if you were, say, to pull out your iPhone mid-flight and make a few calls over Spain. We've already seen what kind of bills you can get there when you stay on the ground.

http://www.switched.com/2007/10/18/in-flight-cell-phone-use-moves-forward-in-europe/

Who the hell commits a crime with pair of books on crime in their vehicle, and then leave it all there for someone to find. Programmers know too much about allocation and management of objects to not destroy them when its detrimental they no longer exist.

So there's no such thing as a buffer overrun, or forgetting to mate every call to malloc() with a free()?

I don't buy the "programmer geek defense". It doesn't match up with the reality, which is that you don't have to be a programmer to be an asshole. They're orthogonic. Lets look at the excuses another way:

1. The books - a "reverse psychology" ploy - figurng that he's so much smarter than everyone else, and that they'd buy into his "well, if I were guilty, why would I have such books? I'd be stupid!" Narcisssists are very much likely to think along such convoluted lines, and to believe that others will fall for their "explanations"
2. The front seat - well, if it had blood on it, he had to dispose of it, since he wasn't smart enough to know that its possible to destroy the dna evidence (if he hadn't been into reading popular books about crime scene technology, and instead read up on the subject properly, he'd have known this). The last murder trial I sat on, the dna expert said he couldn't mention the techniques that could be used to destroy the evidence (you can buy the needed stuff at your local grocery store, btw), but that no such destruction had taken place.
3. The $8k and passport. That doesn't need much of an explanation, and could be quite innocent. His wife had already grabbed $$$ from the bank account. Wouldn't YOU want to stay "liquid" in such a case? Passport - why leave it around for someone to grab when you're living in your car?

Do I believe he did it? I can't say - I'm not on the jury. However, I definitely don't buy into the defense tactic of 'geek nerds are "special" and "hard to understand"' as a "get out of jail" card.

Reiser's lawyer is making a big mistake. Sure, he's playing the "this guy is a creep" card to the jury - but he's also insulting the jury's intelligence by thinking that they won't see it for what it is - a ploy, and not evidence one way or the other. Not trusting a jury can come back and bite you - look at what happened with Jamie Thomas and the $222,000 copyright infringement award. The jurors were pissed that she lied to them, and made it known both inside and outside the courtroom.

"She's a liar. We wanted to send a message. I don't know what the fuck she was thinking."

Better to not take the stand, and let people suspect you're an idiot, than to take it, and prove them right.

Then there's the danger that the jurors will think - "If they really expect us to buy into this bs, they must think we just fell off a turnip truck. Sounds like what I'd expect a guilty know-it-all to do."

At the very least, the choice of tactics shows that the lawyer doesn't believe his client is innocent. Based on that, I'd say the jury will probably convict.

For all of you who are yelling that social network sites unnecessarily require a choice to make things public, check out the Mo Rocca interview video linked to from the main article page. Insightful, to say the least. Hilarious, to say the not least.

I will give your advice back to you: Remember to fact check. The management of the new company called "AT&T" is very different from the more trustworthy company that was AT&T. That's the point. Should Apple have partnered with that new company? I think not.

Why do I think that? Apple will get criticism for everything bad the new "AT&T" does. For example, see the August 23, 2007 article AT&T Ditches 'Fewest Dropped Calls' Ad Campaign, which was apparently fraudulent. This article notes that AT&T's new slogan, "more bars in more places", seems to be exactly the same claim, in different language: AT&T Drops 'Fewest Dropped Calls' Claim.

To understand the new management, consider the history. For $16 Billion SBC got AT&T's VOIP customers, and the AT&T name. Quote from the Business Week: "It isn't clear whether or not AT&T CEO David Dorman, who will earn about $20 million from the sale of AT&T, will stick around."

So, a manager who presided over the failure of his company made $30 million (not $20 million) from selling the company to other managers who are reputed to be just as inept.

The Wikipedia article says, "Dorman's management finesse can be ascertained by tracking the value of AT&T stock during his tenure." Dorman became president in 2000, Wikipedia says. The stock performance tanked beginning just before that, and continued down until the AT&T name was sold to SBC.

It looks from the stock quotes that AT&T is doing well now, but apparently that is only because the AT&T name was pasted on a new company. (It's like unscrewing the radiator cap and driving a different car underneath. That's not real car repair.)

That's Apples new partner. Does that seem like a partner that will enhance a reputation?

Yup, unlike new parking meters.