Although this discovery does not explain all violent crime, it seems to indicate something that will need, should need addressed: very likely none of the CRIMINALS during this time voluntarily or willing took lead to induce their psychosis. They were poisoned; by their environment, by society, by ignorance. At the very least, this raises a interesting "mens rea" situation. Certainly, if someone suffered a blackout from fever induced by severe food poisoning while driving home from the restaurant, ran off the road and killed someone, we wouldn't lock them in a cage and call them "animals". However this study is basically saying that very large numbers of people were inadvertently poisoned, made sick, causing neurological damage, and they were then treated to some of the worst, inhumane treatment (prison, electrocution, lethal injection) that any ill human being has ever endured.
So the question is: when is America going to start realizing that prison as a "deep dank hole" is an inhumane basis of punishment rooted more in religious dogma (making people "suffer" for their sins) than in true causality--neurological (and quite inadvertent) defect? Is there any reason for prisons to be such cold, horrific places? Certainly we can look back on the asylums of the early half of the 20th Century with contempt; yet we, societally, accept prison rape and beatings, isolation and estrangement as fodder for comedy. I am no advocate of a plush lifestyle for those convicted of horrific crimes, but neither am I tolerant of such treatment of those who are neurologically incapable of making better, more rational decisions. We need to STOP putting people in prison for stupid crimes (drugs, financial crimes) and confine the use of "corrections" budgets to making safe, healthy places for the sick to live out their lives under proper (medical, if necessary) care.
Hope he's the right guy. If not, even if he is a piece of shit otherwise (and all signs point to "Yes!"), he's about to have to endure a shit storm of epic proportion fall upon him. And that would not be fair...
If he is the right guy...I will enjoy watching him self-destruct.
The job of judges -IS-, absolutely, to apply the intent of applicable statue to the changing of the times. Clearly, the statute was intended to secure communication while in transit and where it is stored AFTER the traditionally defined (in wiretap terms) concept of "delivery"it was admittedly written in a time where the download and RE-upload of communication for "backup protection" was commonplace. However, technology has shifted; there is no longer the need to download and re-upload, what GETS downloaded is the "transient", temporary state. In wiretap parlance, once a communique is delivered, it is the responsibility of the addressee to henceforth protect it. (Same concept with a physical letter!) In traditional email systems, wiretap would not apply if the Wife had sneakily dug into the MBOX or PST files on the guys computer (because he was responsible for securing those files). But current technology performs both the "backup protection" storage AND viewer task simultaneously; the need for the addressee to take physical possession of the communique is negated.
These judges muffed it. Clearly, anyone who uses and relies upon web-based (transient) interaction for email purposes is EXPLICITLY relying on the storage of that communication for purposes of backup protection. Otherwise, the providers of the service would just throw it away and save the bits, or never provide a Trash.
Also, wat gets labeled "judicial activism" is when Judges creatively use legislation to either bolster or deny behavior in tangential and non-intentional ways. Like applying DUI laws to bicycles. Clearly, when the 'D' in DUI stands for "DRIVING", and the code is enforced under MOTOR VEHICLE CODE, being a drunk moron on a bike shouldn't come under that statute.
Screw "expert tribunal", fight to the death! Each side puts up 12 contenders (to tie it to the jury system), twelve "angry" men (or women, whichever). Then, fight it out Kirk & Spock style, ala koon-ut-kal-if-fee in 'Amok Time'. Damages are based on the number of surviving "jurors".
Because otherwise, the "experts" will just get bought off like every other "regulatory" body in the US and it won't be any fun for anyone. I'd be OK if at least one of the jurors was a VP or higher.
That "defense" seems to be worse than the Dallas Cowboys Defense of last year (excepting DeMarcus Ware...he's the MAN!). So AT&T -ADMITS- they're blocking capriciously and discriminatively, but then says "We're doing nothing wrong."?
I'm not sure what violating net neutrality looks like then, in these guys' minds. So Comcast can block Hulu, that's just fine, but only allow it for their Triple Play customers, since they're trying to reduce congestion???
Where is Apple? They are no longer the poor, dying company they were so many years ago. They profit handsomely from both sides of this debate (selling content companies' media for a profit and selling devices to consumers at a profit). They have power, influence, and some money.
I think it is time for Apple to step up. For the company of record with the '1984' and 'Lemmings' commercials, I find it distasteful that Apple has seemingly only used their financial fortunes to engage in trifling patent wars. One letter from Steve Jobs changed the course of DRM on music. Yet Apple has sat quietly by as Google and Amazon have waded head-first into the DMCA battle royal. No, that's wrong, they have NOT sat by, in fact Apple has quietly worked to sign deals with the DMCA-abusing content providers that covers over the questions being debated. Apple is paying iTunes Match money as "streaming royalties" to RIAA on music that was already legally purchased and for which royalties were paid. Surely double-dip paying the RIAA isn't in the consumers' or artists' best interests. The basic assumption is that ALL music that gets matched (that wasn't from the iTunes store) was pirated...and that is both a lie and a dangerous precedent to Google's (consumer friendly) position. Apple cannot allow their animosity towards Google distract them from maintaining what is right for THEIR supporters and customers.
Apple needs to make their position on the DMCA known: does the consumer have fair-use rights or not? Because I, for one, known where my money goes based on the answer.
The timing on this is WAAAY too coincidental...that's because the studios rolled this out now so that they could tell the Librarian of Congress that there exists a commercial ability to rip DVDs to digital files for use in the iOS infrastructure and therefore Exemption Class 10 and the position of Public Knowledge is unnecessary. Read the comments and replies, you'll see.
Which makes this all the more insidious. They could have rolled this AGES ago, but they're doing it now to stop American consumers from exercising their Free Use rights for another 3 years...during which, I'm sure, there will be another shift in their business strategy that they will take advantage of to bilk consumers. Ironically, the reason they gave during the arguing of the DMCA for this provision was NOT anti-consumer; instead it was compliance with licensing of hardware manufacturers. How thin that veil was! Because now they're back transparently arguing against the consumer. This needs to stop NOW! The studios stood by and watched the revolution; their loss. Consumers have hundreds/thousands of dollars of DVDs and Blu-rays and capable hardware to do the conversions at their fingertips, just as with CDs and iTunes. Exempt the DMCA and give us the ability to exercise our rights without being labeled "pirates".
I posted this the other day, but I'll post it again: AT&T is trying to fundamentally go against the basic tenets of Capitalism. And although it seems pretty well established at this point that Americans don't understand Capitalism, this is actually pretty easy to grok.
Capitalism 101 says that pricing acts as a regulator between supply and demand. AT&T is arguing that they have a supply problem. The capitalistic approach would be to price plans such that moderation would be rewarded, and excess would be limited. We would expect to see AT&T increasing data caps at the lower end to try to get more users onto those plans at a price they find equitable, to promote a more balanced usage pattern that includes cellular data and WiFi. Yet AT&T, has done the exact opposite. They have continued to increase prices on the low end, such that any user with even half a brain sees that the value proposition lies with the more expensive plan. The low end plans are NOT sufficient for even a near majority of users, by AT&T's own numbers (700MB - 1200MB per month average use).
It is ridiculous to believe that a company the size of AT&T doesn't understand basic Capitalism. The only other option is that they are lying. And their recent price hike disguised as a data cap expansion is proof. The "new" plans do nothing to ameliorate the proffered issue of too much data use, since they do not fundamentally change the value proposition of the data plans. Their continued insistence on pushing this particular narrative belies a strategy of thinking the American people are stupid. They might be right; but we'll know they aren't truthful until we see a FREE base plan that includes Visual Voicemail and AT&T WiFi access, and a $10-15 plan that includes 250MB-750MB.
This -WOULD- make sense, only AT&T won't let me use an iPhone on their system without a data plan. Further, even when out of contract I should discontinue the data plan, I LOSE the functionality of Visual VoiceMail, an integral feature of my handset.
Eh, I was once told by Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter that I was advocating for terrorists breaking military encryption because I was against the DMCA. I was trying to explain to a Town Hall meeting how the DMCA made it illegal for purchasers to exercise the right of fair use to copy a DVD because the content industry had merely put on an invisible wrapper of encryptionbasically they paid for a Bill to fleece us in the digital age. Specter went on a rant that I was talking about wanting to allow terrorists to be able to circumvent military encryption. I tried to correct him, but he was too dumb stupid to correct. (I'd give him the benefit of the doubt that he was really being hyper-intelligent and deftly torpedoing my argument, if his rant wasn't so completely devoid of factual basis and comprised mostly of ignorant run-ons--so I can't even do that.)
Priceless was the 80-something year old lady who approached me in the parking lot while I was sitting in my car waiting to exit. I thought she was going to hit me over the head with her purse, you know, for having the gall to speak so bluntly with a Senator/Elder Statesman. Instead she said that she had no idea what I was talking about, but that was clear the Senator didn't know anything either, and that he should have instead listened to me. She was angry with him for having voted for something he clearly didn't understand. So, even if I didn't get Specter to "get it", at least one of his voters did!
AT&T is just a big bundle of fail. Now, after a merger attempt that they should have KNOWN would fail given the history of a monopoly Telecom Industry in the US (the history, in fact, of AT&T!), AT&T is complaining again that the FCC is prohibiting them from getting too big (Too Big to Fail?).
But worse, they keep throwing out claims like "take additional action against the highest data users." Yet, just Monday, they raised the rates on their data users AND increased data caps...even though their own statements from prior in the year gave the picture that 90% of users didn't USE more than 2GB! Do they understand how pricing works in an economic model??? If you want users to use LESS data, LOWER THE PRICING ON YOUR LOWER DATA TIER AND INCREASE THE PRICE ON THE HIGHER TIERS! Furthermore, set tiers levels to actual DATA USAGE PATTERNS! There is no reason there is a 300MB tier (was a 200MB tier) and a 3GB (2GB) tier when all the study data is showing most users are consuming 500-1300MB, with an average of 850.
I'm tired of hearing this crap from AT&T, greed shrouded in pleas of victimhood. What I don't understand is how it doesn't constitute fraud, or cause securities issues. Public companies making patently false statements face consequences. Furthermore, I'm even less impressed with the media and the tech media, in specific, for not doing a better job calling AT&T out and making them look like the greedy pricks they are.
I want to say something about this, something clever, something snarky...but I'm at a loss. I mean, this is a facepalm of such epicness it is nearly unfathomable.
At the risk of being tagged "flamebait", I'm going to second this. It seems to be rather -unscientific- to snarkily jab at "investors who fund climate change skeptics whenever possible"; science needs research, and the more the better. True scientists are --BY DEFINITION-- skeptics, at least they should be. From the link posted above, it seems to me that the Koch brothers have a pretty rational mindset: research, research, research, research.
Besides, at 7 Billion mouth-breathers and doubling quick, if climate change is proven to be anthropogenic, we're screwed. There is no amount of "reduction" we could do at this point short of Logan's Run scenarios to rewind the damage (nor was there, by the time we were scientifically advanced enough to start to figure it out, the damage was already done).
I think it is time for another Amendment to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights discusses a great amount about the OUTPUT of citizens, but little regarding the INPUT...mostly because at the time of the founding it was impossible to -record- such things. The only means was to write about experiences, what someone heard, saw, smelled, tasted, or felt. However that equation has been altered greatly in the past 150 years, starting with photography. Yet the citizenry's right to secure backup of the human sensory system (or electronic record that corresponds to the human sensory system) has not been recognized accordingly. Photographers are still fighting photo bans, and dealing with unconstitutional charges that result. And that is for the oldest form of "record keeping"! There are still outright bans on audio in many states, though video--due to its similarity to still photography--is in a somewhat legal limbo.
This is going to require an Amendment to fundamentally enumerate and incorporate the human right to record the environment. That should not extend to electrical interception (true wiretapping) or electronically-assisted interception (unidirectional microphones and telephoto lenses), but simply to the environment as presented to the human in place, at human levels of perception. Although "photos can lie", human beings should not be hamstrung to the subjective judgement of character (he said, she said) when significantly more accurate measurements are available. If the citizen has a 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination, they should certainly have a right to provide individualized proof of innocence!
Can we all just finally come out and state--once and forever--that the use of a person's photo and name in an *advertisement* (whether as an explicit endorsement or not, regardless of privacy policy or where the photo was uploaded, whether it was on a social network or search query) without the expressed consent of the person is a crime? At the least it strains copyright, it is a theft of service, and at most it constitutes conspiracy to commit fraud. Yes, fraud; because if a company is using my likeness without my knowledge in an attempt to create the impression amongst the people in my social circle that I endorse the advertised product or service, then that company is committing fraud upon my friends.
I don't care what the "Privacy Policy" states, criminal behavior is criminal behavior and cannot be policy'd around. Maybe these advertisers should start coming above board and offer to pay the idiots of their world for their photo and name on an opt-in, campaign-by-campaign basisthere'd be plenty of moron takers and we could use the jobs/extra income.
With all the rest of the ridiculousness going on in this country, it is quite refreshing to see that logic and reason--and scientific basis--can still win the day occasionally.
Anybody else bothered by the fact that a Constitutional Scholar who has ascended to President seems to have a fairly layman's concept of what the Bill of Rights does? I mean, the Bill of Rights applies to the GOVERNMENT, enumerated specific rights that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe upon. However, TFA seems to insinuate that Obama is expecting this new "Bill of Rights" to be applicable to corporations, even other individuals.
Isn't the concept of what rights are and what the Government can/can't do a distinction that a Constitutional Scholar would not be so haphazard in conflating? It seems to me that a programmer wouldn't go around talking about "refactoring" in regards to bringing manufacturing back to town.
Hrm. Since Apple has admitted that OS X development went a bit off track (for at least the 2nd time) due to iOS development, perhaps Apple could use a guy like Ozzie to act as the yang to Steve's ying: working on and leading the "off cycle" OS development while Steve spearheads the next great thing.
I currently have a (~) 7" touchscreen Pioneer headunit in my car that integrates with the iPod. I really wish it was an iPhone mount. However, the current iPod Touch/iPhone screen is just TOO SMALL for dash use. I have to wonder, given the brouhaha surrounding the iPod integration into some BMWs and the Chevy Volt, if perhaps Apple isn't looking to that "personal space" as another market segment. #1 People spend a lot of time in their cars #2 No one likes the current crop of automobile dash unitsthey all suck UI-wise #3 It is a fairly lucrative market but I doubt that any of the car makers really want to be in that space (given their heretofore lack of design effort) #4 Double-DIN is right about the size of what a 7" iPad would be #5 Microsoft SYNC, ugh
Plus, the kiddies in the back seats could be sporting the iPad, a much more rounded solution then a stupid animated feature in the head-rest DVD player, again.
Slashdot Mirror
Although this discovery does not explain all violent crime, it seems to indicate something that will need, should need addressed: very likely none of the CRIMINALS during this time voluntarily or willing took lead to induce their psychosis. They were poisoned; by their environment, by society, by ignorance. At the very least, this raises a interesting "mens rea" situation. Certainly, if someone suffered a blackout from fever induced by severe food poisoning while driving home from the restaurant, ran off the road and killed someone, we wouldn't lock them in a cage and call them "animals". However this study is basically saying that very large numbers of people were inadvertently poisoned, made sick, causing neurological damage, and they were then treated to some of the worst, inhumane treatment (prison, electrocution, lethal injection) that any ill human being has ever endured.
So the question is: when is America going to start realizing that prison as a "deep dank hole" is an inhumane basis of punishment rooted more in religious dogma (making people "suffer" for their sins) than in true causality--neurological (and quite inadvertent) defect? Is there any reason for prisons to be such cold, horrific places? Certainly we can look back on the asylums of the early half of the 20th Century with contempt; yet we, societally, accept prison rape and beatings, isolation and estrangement as fodder for comedy. I am no advocate of a plush lifestyle for those convicted of horrific crimes, but neither am I tolerant of such treatment of those who are neurologically incapable of making better, more rational decisions. We need to STOP putting people in prison for stupid crimes (drugs, financial crimes) and confine the use of "corrections" budgets to making safe, healthy places for the sick to live out their lives under proper (medical, if necessary) care.
Hope he's the right guy. If not, even if he is a piece of shit otherwise (and all signs point to "Yes!"), he's about to have to endure a shit storm of epic proportion fall upon him. And that would not be fair...
If he is the right guy...I will enjoy watching him self-destruct.
The job of judges -IS-, absolutely, to apply the intent of applicable statue to the changing of the times. Clearly, the statute was intended to secure communication while in transit and where it is stored AFTER the traditionally defined (in wiretap terms) concept of "delivery"it was admittedly written in a time where the download and RE-upload of communication for "backup protection" was commonplace. However, technology has shifted; there is no longer the need to download and re-upload, what GETS downloaded is the "transient", temporary state. In wiretap parlance, once a communique is delivered, it is the responsibility of the addressee to henceforth protect it. (Same concept with a physical letter!) In traditional email systems, wiretap would not apply if the Wife had sneakily dug into the MBOX or PST files on the guys computer (because he was responsible for securing those files). But current technology performs both the "backup protection" storage AND viewer task simultaneously; the need for the addressee to take physical possession of the communique is negated.
These judges muffed it. Clearly, anyone who uses and relies upon web-based (transient) interaction for email purposes is EXPLICITLY relying on the storage of that communication for purposes of backup protection. Otherwise, the providers of the service would just throw it away and save the bits, or never provide a Trash.
Also, wat gets labeled "judicial activism" is when Judges creatively use legislation to either bolster or deny behavior in tangential and non-intentional ways. Like applying DUI laws to bicycles. Clearly, when the 'D' in DUI stands for "DRIVING", and the code is enforced under MOTOR VEHICLE CODE, being a drunk moron on a bike shouldn't come under that statute.
Screw "expert tribunal", fight to the death! Each side puts up 12 contenders (to tie it to the jury system), twelve "angry" men (or women, whichever). Then, fight it out Kirk & Spock style, ala koon-ut-kal-if-fee in 'Amok Time'. Damages are based on the number of surviving "jurors".
Because otherwise, the "experts" will just get bought off like every other "regulatory" body in the US and it won't be any fun for anyone. I'd be OK if at least one of the jurors was a VP or higher.
That "defense" seems to be worse than the Dallas Cowboys Defense of last year (excepting DeMarcus Ware...he's the MAN!). So AT&T -ADMITS- they're blocking capriciously and discriminatively, but then says "We're doing nothing wrong."?
I'm not sure what violating net neutrality looks like then, in these guys' minds. So Comcast can block Hulu, that's just fine, but only allow it for their Triple Play customers, since they're trying to reduce congestion???
BZZZZZZT! Wrong answer, jerk.
Next we'll have an informer tell us that Mr. Jaffe has been busy secretly buying up property in Iowa.
It is mildly hilarious that you attempt to ridicule "libertarian" by espousing a completely incorrect stereotype of it.
WAIT! I thought colony collapse disorder was caused by cell phone radiation...the science was settled. Everyone agreed. How can this be? (bee?)
Where is Apple? They are no longer the poor, dying company they were so many years ago. They profit handsomely from both sides of this debate (selling content companies' media for a profit and selling devices to consumers at a profit). They have power, influence, and some money.
I think it is time for Apple to step up. For the company of record with the '1984' and 'Lemmings' commercials, I find it distasteful that Apple has seemingly only used their financial fortunes to engage in trifling patent wars. One letter from Steve Jobs changed the course of DRM on music. Yet Apple has sat quietly by as Google and Amazon have waded head-first into the DMCA battle royal. No, that's wrong, they have NOT sat by, in fact Apple has quietly worked to sign deals with the DMCA-abusing content providers that covers over the questions being debated. Apple is paying iTunes Match money as "streaming royalties" to RIAA on music that was already legally purchased and for which royalties were paid. Surely double-dip paying the RIAA isn't in the consumers' or artists' best interests. The basic assumption is that ALL music that gets matched (that wasn't from the iTunes store) was pirated...and that is both a lie and a dangerous precedent to Google's (consumer friendly) position. Apple cannot allow their animosity towards Google distract them from maintaining what is right for THEIR supporters and customers.
Apple needs to make their position on the DMCA known: does the consumer have fair-use rights or not? Because I, for one, known where my money goes based on the answer.
The timing on this is WAAAY too coincidental...that's because the studios rolled this out now so that they could tell the Librarian of Congress that there exists a commercial ability to rip DVDs to digital files for use in the iOS infrastructure and therefore Exemption Class 10 and the position of Public Knowledge is unnecessary. Read the comments and replies, you'll see.
Which makes this all the more insidious. They could have rolled this AGES ago, but they're doing it now to stop American consumers from exercising their Free Use rights for another 3 years...during which, I'm sure, there will be another shift in their business strategy that they will take advantage of to bilk consumers. Ironically, the reason they gave during the arguing of the DMCA for this provision was NOT anti-consumer; instead it was compliance with licensing of hardware manufacturers. How thin that veil was! Because now they're back transparently arguing against the consumer. This needs to stop NOW! The studios stood by and watched the revolution; their loss. Consumers have hundreds/thousands of dollars of DVDs and Blu-rays and capable hardware to do the conversions at their fingertips, just as with CDs and iTunes. Exempt the DMCA and give us the ability to exercise our rights without being labeled "pirates".
I do not find it at all coincidental that the Studios announce such a thing so closely to the closing of the initial round of comments for Exemptions to Prohibition on Circumvention for the DMCA by the Librarian of Congress. Part of the reply the MPAA put forth against Class 10 was that there was not an overwhelming burden affecting the market. Of course, that would be flat-out HOGWASH, as the opposing commenters in the Class pointed out...but looookie here! There is a service that does just that! No need to approve such exemptions!
Hopefully the Librarian of Congress does not fall for this onerous slight-of-hand. (However, I am not exactly confident of that.)
I posted this the other day, but I'll post it again: AT&T is trying to fundamentally go against the basic tenets of Capitalism. And although it seems pretty well established at this point that Americans don't understand Capitalism, this is actually pretty easy to grok.
Capitalism 101 says that pricing acts as a regulator between supply and demand. AT&T is arguing that they have a supply problem. The capitalistic approach would be to price plans such that moderation would be rewarded, and excess would be limited. We would expect to see AT&T increasing data caps at the lower end to try to get more users onto those plans at a price they find equitable, to promote a more balanced usage pattern that includes cellular data and WiFi. Yet AT&T, has done the exact opposite. They have continued to increase prices on the low end, such that any user with even half a brain sees that the value proposition lies with the more expensive plan. The low end plans are NOT sufficient for even a near majority of users, by AT&T's own numbers (700MB - 1200MB per month average use).
It is ridiculous to believe that a company the size of AT&T doesn't understand basic Capitalism. The only other option is that they are lying. And their recent price hike disguised as a data cap expansion is proof. The "new" plans do nothing to ameliorate the proffered issue of too much data use, since they do not fundamentally change the value proposition of the data plans. Their continued insistence on pushing this particular narrative belies a strategy of thinking the American people are stupid. They might be right; but we'll know they aren't truthful until we see a FREE base plan that includes Visual Voicemail and AT&T WiFi access, and a $10-15 plan that includes 250MB-750MB.
This -WOULD- make sense, only AT&T won't let me use an iPhone on their system without a data plan. Further, even when out of contract I should discontinue the data plan, I LOSE the functionality of Visual VoiceMail, an integral feature of my handset.
Eh, I was once told by Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter that I was advocating for terrorists breaking military encryption because I was against the DMCA. I was trying to explain to a Town Hall meeting how the DMCA made it illegal for purchasers to exercise the right of fair use to copy a DVD because the content industry had merely put on an invisible wrapper of encryptionbasically they paid for a Bill to fleece us in the digital age. Specter went on a rant that I was talking about wanting to allow terrorists to be able to circumvent military encryption. I tried to correct him, but he was too dumb stupid to correct. (I'd give him the benefit of the doubt that he was really being hyper-intelligent and deftly torpedoing my argument, if his rant wasn't so completely devoid of factual basis and comprised mostly of ignorant run-ons--so I can't even do that.)
Priceless was the 80-something year old lady who approached me in the parking lot while I was sitting in my car waiting to exit. I thought she was going to hit me over the head with her purse, you know, for having the gall to speak so bluntly with a Senator/Elder Statesman. Instead she said that she had no idea what I was talking about, but that was clear the Senator didn't know anything either, and that he should have instead listened to me. She was angry with him for having voted for something he clearly didn't understand. So, even if I didn't get Specter to "get it", at least one of his voters did!
AT&T is just a big bundle of fail. Now, after a merger attempt that they should have KNOWN would fail given the history of a monopoly Telecom Industry in the US (the history, in fact, of AT&T!), AT&T is complaining again that the FCC is prohibiting them from getting too big (Too Big to Fail?).
But worse, they keep throwing out claims like "take additional action against the highest data users." Yet, just Monday, they raised the rates on their data users AND increased data caps...even though their own statements from prior in the year gave the picture that 90% of users didn't USE more than 2GB! Do they understand how pricing works in an economic model??? If you want users to use LESS data, LOWER THE PRICING ON YOUR LOWER DATA TIER AND INCREASE THE PRICE ON THE HIGHER TIERS! Furthermore, set tiers levels to actual DATA USAGE PATTERNS! There is no reason there is a 300MB tier (was a 200MB tier) and a 3GB (2GB) tier when all the study data is showing most users are consuming 500-1300MB, with an average of 850.
I'm tired of hearing this crap from AT&T, greed shrouded in pleas of victimhood. What I don't understand is how it doesn't constitute fraud, or cause securities issues. Public companies making patently false statements face consequences. Furthermore, I'm even less impressed with the media and the tech media, in specific, for not doing a better job calling AT&T out and making them look like the greedy pricks they are.
I want to say something about this, something clever, something snarky...but I'm at a loss. I mean, this is a facepalm of such epicness it is nearly unfathomable.
At the risk of being tagged "flamebait", I'm going to second this. It seems to be rather -unscientific- to snarkily jab at "investors who fund climate change skeptics whenever possible"; science needs research, and the more the better. True scientists are --BY DEFINITION-- skeptics, at least they should be. From the link posted above, it seems to me that the Koch brothers have a pretty rational mindset: research, research, research, research.
Besides, at 7 Billion mouth-breathers and doubling quick, if climate change is proven to be anthropogenic, we're screwed. There is no amount of "reduction" we could do at this point short of Logan's Run scenarios to rewind the damage (nor was there, by the time we were scientifically advanced enough to start to figure it out, the damage was already done).
NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooo!
"probably just a statistical fluctuation"...or is that exactly what the Higgs Boson WANTS us to think???
That sneaky particle...
I think it is time for another Amendment to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights discusses a great amount about the OUTPUT of citizens, but little regarding the INPUT...mostly because at the time of the founding it was impossible to -record- such things. The only means was to write about experiences, what someone heard, saw, smelled, tasted, or felt. However that equation has been altered greatly in the past 150 years, starting with photography. Yet the citizenry's right to secure backup of the human sensory system (or electronic record that corresponds to the human sensory system) has not been recognized accordingly.
Photographers are still fighting photo bans, and dealing with unconstitutional charges that result. And that is for the oldest form of "record keeping"! There are still outright bans on audio in many states, though video--due to its similarity to still photography--is in a somewhat legal limbo.
This is going to require an Amendment to fundamentally enumerate and incorporate the human right to record the environment. That should not extend to electrical interception (true wiretapping) or electronically-assisted interception (unidirectional microphones and telephoto lenses), but simply to the environment as presented to the human in place, at human levels of perception. Although "photos can lie", human beings should not be hamstrung to the subjective judgement of character (he said, she said) when significantly more accurate measurements are available. If the citizen has a 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination, they should certainly have a right to provide individualized proof of innocence!
Can we all just finally come out and state--once and forever--that the use of a person's photo and name in an *advertisement* (whether as an explicit endorsement or not, regardless of privacy policy or where the photo was uploaded, whether it was on a social network or search query) without the expressed consent of the person is a crime? At the least it strains copyright, it is a theft of service, and at most it constitutes conspiracy to commit fraud. Yes, fraud; because if a company is using my likeness without my knowledge in an attempt to create the impression amongst the people in my social circle that I endorse the advertised product or service, then that company is committing fraud upon my friends.
I don't care what the "Privacy Policy" states, criminal behavior is criminal behavior and cannot be policy'd around. Maybe these advertisers should start coming above board and offer to pay the idiots of their world for their photo and name on an opt-in, campaign-by-campaign basisthere'd be plenty of moron takers and we could use the jobs/extra income.
With all the rest of the ridiculousness going on in this country, it is quite refreshing to see that logic and reason--and scientific basis--can still win the day occasionally.
Anybody else bothered by the fact that a Constitutional Scholar who has ascended to President seems to have a fairly layman's concept of what the Bill of Rights does? I mean, the Bill of Rights applies to the GOVERNMENT, enumerated specific rights that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe upon. However, TFA seems to insinuate that Obama is expecting this new "Bill of Rights" to be applicable to corporations, even other individuals.
Isn't the concept of what rights are and what the Government can/can't do a distinction that a Constitutional Scholar would not be so haphazard in conflating? It seems to me that a programmer wouldn't go around talking about "refactoring" in regards to bringing manufacturing back to town.
Hrm. Since Apple has admitted that OS X development went a bit off track (for at least the 2nd time) due to iOS development, perhaps Apple could use a guy like Ozzie to act as the yang to Steve's ying: working on and leading the "off cycle" OS development while Steve spearheads the next great thing.
I currently have a (~) 7" touchscreen Pioneer headunit in my car that integrates with the iPod. I really wish it was an iPhone mount. However, the current iPod Touch/iPhone screen is just TOO SMALL for dash use. I have to wonder, given the brouhaha surrounding the iPod integration into some BMWs and the Chevy Volt, if perhaps Apple isn't looking to that "personal space" as another market segment.
#1 People spend a lot of time in their cars
#2 No one likes the current crop of automobile dash unitsthey all suck UI-wise
#3 It is a fairly lucrative market but I doubt that any of the car makers really want to be in that space (given their heretofore lack of design effort)
#4 Double-DIN is right about the size of what a 7" iPad would be
#5 Microsoft SYNC, ugh
Plus, the kiddies in the back seats could be sporting the iPad, a much more rounded solution then a stupid animated feature in the head-rest DVD player, again.