Hey, I've got an idea! What if the US government just stops meddling in the affairs of other nations? Its amusing to hear people spout this line and then hear them decry America's inaction in Dafur. Which is it people? Do we meddle or not? Because at the moment we're going to be lambasted no matter what we do.
I don't know. However first we must look at the sampling done by the article and determine if it was a valid sample that would produce non-biased results. Then we need to look at the numbers themselves and see if they were interpreted correctly (involving both layman and well known mathematicians who are either known to offer non-biased results or enough mathematicians that represent both biases towards the government and towards commercial companies). Only then can we know if the results are correct and even begin to ascertain the reason behind them.
I'd love to meet the person who honestly believes that Microsoft would follow the ODF standard, were it to be implemented. Thankfully Microsoft isn't the only closed source company out there (unfortunately they're the major one).
You seem to be confusing the difference between a standard and software. An OSI standard isn't exactly going to be changing very often and especially not if the group is "collapsing from internal quibbling." You also don't buy standards (unless you're Microsoft).
Now if there was an office suite that had 100% of the market, that would be prone to collapsing due to internal quibbling. However the beauty of open standards is that anyone, open and closed, can produce an office suite that utilizes the standard.
Or what about the people who say there are UFOs in Area 51? Are they going to get sued for libel, too? Of course not. Telling the truth is a defence for libel. Unfortunately it isn't a defence for spreading state secrets *no carrier*
Then why aren't they liable for every single piece of child porn that goes through their network? Aren't they facilitating the distribution of child pornography? Possibly even accessories?
This isn't censorship but a value added service on AT&T's behalf. If someone is complaining about AT&T obviously they're unhappy with their service and so AT&T saves them the customer the hassle of calling and cancelling the service by simply cancelling it themselves. This is a great service on AT&T's part (no more having to wait 1 hour on hold to talk to a person) and I can't see how anyone could complain about it.
AT&T users may want to think twice about commenting if they value their internet service. I dunno. The idea of someone valuing AT&T's service while at the same time complaining about it seems a bit strange to me. They wouldn't be complaining after all if they were happy with it.
Yes but including code that deliberately bricks phones would be illegal. Now whether or not Apple does this is what the debate is based on. People here are claiming: 1) Apple detects to see if its unlocked. 2) Apple then bricks the phone.
Others are claiming: 1) Apple detects to see if its unlocked. 2) Apple then reinstalls the OS. 3) Some phones are inadvertently bricked, some aren't.
The BBC leans strongly towards it being deliberate, however it doesn't say it outright. Others are saying other websites are reporting only some unlocked phones are being bricked, but none of them have provided links and I don't care enough to find one myself.
Once upon a time Apple software simply couldn't run on most PCs because of the Xbox/PS difference you mention. However now Apple software COULD run on most PCs because they're pretty similar. The reason they can't is because Apple uses DRM on OSX to lock it to Apple hardware only. That is why the claim is bogus.
chances are you'll use a network printer, which usually means internet access as well. I don't think you know what the internet means. Only an extremely inefficient setup would require you to access the internet on a device that is connected to the onsite network.
It has to do with scaling. How many buildings have the internet in your area? Now how many buildings have electricity in that same area? There's a good chance the latter number is significantly higher so they get to lower the price as for the most part providing electricity/internet for 1000 buildings is going to cost the same as providing it for 10001, however that extra person doesn't get it for free, and so everyone's price gets lowered as a result.
probably for easier upgradeability from their side Even if that's true (and IMO the real reason is cookies, Google is infamous for them with their ads) its pure laziness to require it.
I don't know. I don't have an ad-blocker, I do, however, have NoScript on and I don't allow offsite scripts to run on a site (unless I can see its for very important functional reasons). There's no reason except laziness to not host the ads locally (or parse it into the page in perl (?)) or to try to give someone cookies to track them with. So unfortunately for slashdot, I no longer see its ads.
I can't tell if you're joking or not, however assuming you aren't: that would only work if Cyber Crime was #1 on the FBI priority list, rather then #3.
While on the one hand getting feedback in this manner is good, satirizing them is also important. So its one step back one step forward for the New Zealand government.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because there are dozens of guards just for you. In reality there are hundreds of you for every guard.
Aaah, well at least you're consistent. Good to see you think genocide isn't the business of the just and free.
I don't know. However first we must look at the sampling done by the article and determine if it was a valid sample that would produce non-biased results. Then we need to look at the numbers themselves and see if they were interpreted correctly (involving both layman and well known mathematicians who are either known to offer non-biased results or enough mathematicians that represent both biases towards the government and towards commercial companies). Only then can we know if the results are correct and even begin to ascertain the reason behind them.
A more important question is why doesn't the US have these laws?
You seem to be confusing the difference between a standard and software. An OSI standard isn't exactly going to be changing very often and especially not if the group is "collapsing from internal quibbling." You also don't buy standards (unless you're Microsoft).
Now if there was an office suite that had 100% of the market, that would be prone to collapsing due to internal quibbling. However the beauty of open standards is that anyone, open and closed, can produce an office suite that utilizes the standard.
What about if they're just blowing Clinton?
My bad, thanks for correcting me.
link?
Then why aren't they liable for every single piece of child porn that goes through their network? Aren't they facilitating the distribution of child pornography? Possibly even accessories?
This isn't censorship but a value added service on AT&T's behalf. If someone is complaining about AT&T obviously they're unhappy with their service and so AT&T saves them the customer the hassle of calling and cancelling the service by simply cancelling it themselves. This is a great service on AT&T's part (no more having to wait 1 hour on hold to talk to a person) and I can't see how anyone could complain about it.
Yes but including code that deliberately bricks phones would be illegal. Now whether or not Apple does this is what the debate is based on. People here are claiming:
1) Apple detects to see if its unlocked.
2) Apple then bricks the phone.
Others are claiming:
1) Apple detects to see if its unlocked.
2) Apple then reinstalls the OS.
3) Some phones are inadvertently bricked, some aren't.
The BBC leans strongly towards it being deliberate, however it doesn't say it outright. Others are saying other websites are reporting only some unlocked phones are being bricked, but none of them have provided links and I don't care enough to find one myself.
Once upon a time Apple software simply couldn't run on most PCs because of the Xbox/PS difference you mention. However now Apple software COULD run on most PCs because they're pretty similar. The reason they can't is because Apple uses DRM on OSX to lock it to Apple hardware only. That is why the claim is bogus.
It has to do with scaling. How many buildings have the internet in your area? Now how many buildings have electricity in that same area? There's a good chance the latter number is significantly higher so they get to lower the price as for the most part providing electricity/internet for 1000 buildings is going to cost the same as providing it for 10001, however that extra person doesn't get it for free, and so everyone's price gets lowered as a result.
I don't know. I don't have an ad-blocker, I do, however, have NoScript on and I don't allow offsite scripts to run on a site (unless I can see its for very important functional reasons). There's no reason except laziness to not host the ads locally (or parse it into the page in perl (?)) or to try to give someone cookies to track them with. So unfortunately for slashdot, I no longer see its ads.
Given that the OP said it must be equal or less it certainly isn't incorrect. 24.5 is the very maximum it could possibly be.
I can't tell if you're joking or not, however assuming you aren't: that would only work if Cyber Crime was #1 on the FBI priority list, rather then #3.
You mean like some sort of election process of what law people want that is done electronically?
While on the one hand getting feedback in this manner is good, satirizing them is also important. So its one step back one step forward for the New Zealand government.
I submit that the Title isn't notable enough with this google search only revealing one relevant link. As such I propose we delete this page.