I believe the same, but because of the letter of the rule, it leads to stupid situations. I have to turn off my noise-cancelling headphones, which actually make it easier for me to hear and understand them, because they're electronic. Meanwhile, the guy sitting next to me can have earplugs in making it impossible for him to hear anything.
How about a half hour on each end of a 2 hour leg were I can't read because brought a Kindle instead of 3 paper books.
When you board, they tell you that when they close the door, you have to turn off your electronic devices and they won't leave the gate until you do. Ostensibly, that's to prevent interference with the radio while they talk to the tower. After you land, while still taxiing, they announce that you can turn on your cell phones, but have to leave everything else turned off. Wait, I thought they said the cell phones were causing interference?
The rule is not just idiotic, it's inconsistently applied.
Once or twice, I'd be willing to go with the former. But this is at least the 4th time that they've done this, 2nd just with "iPhone." The others I know about are "iOS" and "iPad." They even butted up against the same company (Cisco) twice. First for iPhone, then for iOS.
It's pure arrogance on their part, just like all the patent BS. They only care about their own, questionable IP and routinely ignore that of others.
That revenue comes from selling my searches and habits to other vendors.
Google makes most of its money from selling ad space. Yes, they use their vast data mining in their ad business, but they don't sell the data.
At least the local grocery store, which does the same thing, gives me discounts and coupons for the privilege of shopping there so they can sell my information. Why shouldn't Google do the same?
The grocery store does sell data about you and, yes, you get a discount on some items. You want Google to give you a discount? How do you discount free?
These aren't submarine patents, like what Rambus did.
This is Apple pulling double standards. Lots of companies have licensed Samsung's standards-essential patents, but Apple refused to. Just because it's FRAND, doesn't mean that Apple can ignore the need to license them. There is some question of patent exhaustion (I think that's the right term), but the courts seem to be inconsistent in dealing with it (see CSIRO vs Buffalo Technology).
Apple has a long history of ignoring other people's/companies' IP, but crying foul over their IP, which is largely questionable.
And an ebook version of a book does not need any more than the physical version. I would argue less (no typesetter, for example). You should, in theory, be able to take the same text and output it in whatever ebook version you want without much extra effort.
There is absolutely no reason why an electronic copy of a book should cost more than a physical version. The lack of printing and distribution costs (distribution cost to the publisher is negligible; just one copy to each retailer) should guarantee that it's lower. I've seen many cases where the Kindle version of a book was more than the paperback on Amazon. In every case, the price of the ebook was set by the publisher.
The people running Slashdot are trolls, examples of the worst characteristics of journalism that we see many times elsewhere..
You seem to misunderstand Slashdot. There's no "journalism" here. Almost all of the content is user submitted, including most of the summaries. And with the "firehose," the "editors" take a step even further back in letting users select which submissions get posted.
a) That was not Google, that was pre-buyout Motorola. b) The terms are supposedly the same terms that many other companies have already agreed to. c) It doesn't matter if the patent is FRAND or not. If it's being used without license, it's infringement. Yet it seems like every time FRAND patents get asserted, people go apeshit. Meanwhile, Apple and MS are asserting patents that should have never been issued and people are jumping on their bandwagon.
Just to point out, I'm against the idea of patents in standards. Instead of FRAND agreements, I think that they should be required to assign the patent to the public domain.
and for those who call apple "sue happy", notice they haven't sued sony -- which has androids handsets. and sony is pretty much bigger than, say, htc, so they should be a larger target, no?
Sony isn't bigger than HTC in the smartphone market. In the US, at least, they're going after the ones who make Android phones that sell well (Samsung, HTC, and Motorola), but leaving the ones that don't (Huawei, ZTE, Casio, and Sony) alone to the best of my knowledge.
There's a bit of a difference. MS was convicted of using their OS monopoly to harm existing competitors in the web browser space. Because of the closed nature of the entire iOS environment, there has never been a competing browser to Safari in iOS.
One could argue that there is an abuse of position by Apple, but unless/until the courts decide there is, nothing will be done.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that you have to enter all of the information that was listed (except the location) yourself, you know exactly what information it's collecting.
You do realize that the cases you're referring to started before Google took over Motorola, right?
I believe the same, but because of the letter of the rule, it leads to stupid situations. I have to turn off my noise-cancelling headphones, which actually make it easier for me to hear and understand them, because they're electronic. Meanwhile, the guy sitting next to me can have earplugs in making it impossible for him to hear anything.
How about a half hour on each end of a 2 hour leg were I can't read because brought a Kindle instead of 3 paper books.
When you board, they tell you that when they close the door, you have to turn off your electronic devices and they won't leave the gate until you do. Ostensibly, that's to prevent interference with the radio while they talk to the tower. After you land, while still taxiing, they announce that you can turn on your cell phones, but have to leave everything else turned off. Wait, I thought they said the cell phones were causing interference?
The rule is not just idiotic, it's inconsistently applied.
In Google Maps for Android, Latitude is off by default. You have to explicitly turn it on.
Once or twice, I'd be willing to go with the former. But this is at least the 4th time that they've done this, 2nd just with "iPhone." The others I know about are "iOS" and "iPad." They even butted up against the same company (Cisco) twice. First for iPhone, then for iOS.
It's pure arrogance on their part, just like all the patent BS. They only care about their own, questionable IP and routinely ignore that of others.
This just in! Nature moves closer to a flu immune to the "universal" vaccine.
That revenue comes from selling my searches and habits to other vendors.
Google makes most of its money from selling ad space. Yes, they use their vast data mining in their ad business, but they don't sell the data.
At least the local grocery store, which does the same thing, gives me discounts and coupons for the privilege of shopping there so they can sell my information. Why shouldn't Google do the same?
The grocery store does sell data about you and, yes, you get a discount on some items. You want Google to give you a discount? How do you discount free?
I think it's not that they don't have human rights issues, more that they don't consider them issues and just ignore them.
These aren't submarine patents, like what Rambus did.
This is Apple pulling double standards. Lots of companies have licensed Samsung's standards-essential patents, but Apple refused to. Just because it's FRAND, doesn't mean that Apple can ignore the need to license them. There is some question of patent exhaustion (I think that's the right term), but the courts seem to be inconsistent in dealing with it (see CSIRO vs Buffalo Technology).
Apple has a long history of ignoring other people's/companies' IP, but crying foul over their IP, which is largely questionable.
.. says it's "unbelievably great?"
You, know what? He's right. I don't believe it.
Things are improving. It used to involve swimming or kayaking across the Pacific. At least now you can take a sailboat.
And an ebook version of a book does not need any more than the physical version. I would argue less (no typesetter, for example). You should, in theory, be able to take the same text and output it in whatever ebook version you want without much extra effort.
There is absolutely no reason why an electronic copy of a book should cost more than a physical version. The lack of printing and distribution costs (distribution cost to the publisher is negligible; just one copy to each retailer) should guarantee that it's lower. I've seen many cases where the Kindle version of a book was more than the paperback on Amazon. In every case, the price of the ebook was set by the publisher.
The people running Slashdot are trolls, examples of the worst characteristics of journalism that we see many times elsewhere..
You seem to misunderstand Slashdot. There's no "journalism" here. Almost all of the content is user submitted, including most of the summaries. And with the "firehose," the "editors" take a step even further back in letting users select which submissions get posted.
Killing lawyers is inconceivable?
"Google's FRAND patent abuses?"
a) That was not Google, that was pre-buyout Motorola.
b) The terms are supposedly the same terms that many other companies have already agreed to.
c) It doesn't matter if the patent is FRAND or not. If it's being used without license, it's infringement. Yet it seems like every time FRAND patents get asserted, people go apeshit. Meanwhile, Apple and MS are asserting patents that should have never been issued and people are jumping on their bandwagon.
Just to point out, I'm against the idea of patents in standards. Instead of FRAND agreements, I think that they should be required to assign the patent to the public domain.
Maybe they meant to say Backfire (Tu-22M) or Blackjack (Tu-160)?
Actually, not.
Whooooosh!
It's a quote from Contact.
First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?
and for those who call apple "sue happy", notice they haven't sued sony -- which has androids handsets. and sony is pretty much bigger than, say, htc, so they should be a larger target, no?
Sony isn't bigger than HTC in the smartphone market. In the US, at least, they're going after the ones who make Android phones that sell well (Samsung, HTC, and Motorola), but leaving the ones that don't (Huawei, ZTE, Casio, and Sony) alone to the best of my knowledge.
unwanted advertisement
To the uTorrent forums, that's exactly what it was.
There's a bit of a difference. MS was convicted of using their OS monopoly to harm existing competitors in the web browser space. Because of the closed nature of the entire iOS environment, there has never been a competing browser to Safari in iOS.
One could argue that there is an abuse of position by Apple, but unless/until the courts decide there is, nothing will be done.
A scumbag politician.
FTFY
At National, there's concrete around the terminals where the planes are expected to sit for a while, but tarmac on the taxiways and runways.
At nearby Dulles, which has far more traffic, it's concrete everywhere.