You don't _have_ to with iOS devices either, jailbreak and install whatever you like. But, that is beside the point. Google et al should not get a free pass simply because their platform isn't yet as locked down - you still cannot get these apps from the 'official' sources, and that is going to stop people (at least some of them) from informing themselves.
I said nothing about criminal intent, way to get needlessly defensive. In fact, if you take a look at the other posts I have made on this story I have said quite the opposite.
I passed a cop who was doing the speed limit in his cruiser. No radar gun required for that one. And yes, the cop noticed I was extremely amused by the entire situation, probably why I only got a warning and not a ticket - I was likely the most pleasant person he dealt with all day.
Yes, you can. I've known more than one person who got a dui riding a bicycle. The rationalization is that you can seriously hurt someone by hitting them with a bicycle, too. Personally, I got a written warning for speeding on a bicycle.
Now if we got more cyclists to understand that road laws affect them as well, I would be much happier when driving. Either you get to use crosswalks and be a pedestrian, or you get to move with traffic, not both. Get off the damn thing if you want pedestrian right-of-way.
Not only that but for commercial drivers federal regulations put that limit at.04 and not.08. The part that isn't often mentioned about that is that it applies in personal vehicles as well.
To answer more directly, they do not have the right to stop you for no reason as I understand the law, there must be cause.
Operating commercial vehicles puts many more requirements on both the driver and the vehicle which are well publicized before you so much as step into the vehicle. There is no easy comparison to a typical operator license.
Unless the app happens to work in other countries which haven't historically been forward-thinking about these types of things, or has community supplied information on things such as stationary speed traps.
You were doing well up until that last sentence, which is sad as you only wrote three.
Google maps does not provide that feature on my phone, takes a long time to load and is unnecessarily complicated for my drive home which takes place between 12-3am. At those times, traffic is light, accidents rarely cause slowdowns, and construction is limited to well publicized major roadwork. The common slowdown is DUI checkpoints, which I prefer to avoid as they can take upwards of 45 minutes to pass through.
Also, I carry a commercial license, which due to federal law limits my BAC to below.04 (half of what the typical driver is allowed) and I am considered unable to drive if there is any detectable amount of alcohol. Yet these apps are still of use to me, despite the fact that drinking and driving carries harsher penalties for me and if I do drink, I ride with someone who hasn't been drinking, call a taxi, or simply walk.
Now, how are these the lamest of lame excuses, other than the fact you're upset these might be used by people at bars? I'm not the one being a danger on the road, your anger is misdirected. Keep your knee-jerk MADD reactions to yourself.
I don't remember if it is a US or Canadian commercial (I get television stations from all over the map here) but there is an advertising campaign to illustrate that exact point.
The tagline fits your comment pretty well, "Buzzed driving is drunk driving. Over the limit, under arrest."
Tacky as hell visuals though, about on par with any other PSA-type advert.
So, it makes perfect sense that an occasional traveller with a blackberry has to pay an added fee to use a feature built into the phone (tethering is there by default), yet I can stream audio and video all day long and not pay a dime more on the same 'unlimited' plan? Yes, streaming audio and video are features built into my phone as well, but I use far more data than any of those I know that tether - common sense would say I should pay more, but I don't. Granted, this is a small sample, yet it still makes no sense.
This is the current state of 'how the world works' 'in the real world' and those who aren't complaining are deluding themselves.
I understand quite well the need for more pricing tiers - after all, I admit I am one of those horrible abusive users. What seems silly is arguing higher prices for every user due to those few - or higher pricing for a specific application. All I am saying is that how a user chooses to use their allotment is irrelevant and should not reflect in the price other than how much data they actually use.
This isn't a case of only having two possible choices, however. The case you present is charge everybody more for a few users who use too much, or remove tethering apps from everyone across the board. Would it not be simpler to charge more for going over data usage cap, and leave the tethering apps for all those people who would like to use them on occasion? To me, it seems obvious to charge more for those who consume more, not charge more because a specific class of device just happens to be connected to the phone.
As stated above by someone else, why not charge for bluetooth capability as well? As we all know, people who own bluetooth headsets make more phone calls on average, so they should be charged more in general.
Yet no one is asking for unlimited data to every device they happen to own, or carry. They are asking for the same data as always being delivered to their phone. What verizon et al are doing is limiting where that data can go once it gets to the phone.
This is probably a horrible analogy, and I am sure someone will point out why shortly but this is akin to saying that only you can make voice calls on your phone - you can't hand it to your buddy Fred because he forgot his phone and needs to call his wife. Now add to this that they are imposing technical limitations to make it difficult for someone else to make a call using your phone. It's the same voice minutes, they are still coming out of the allotment you pay for. It is the same for data.
There is no 10% rule, or any other magic percentage to set the threshold of what is or isn't fair use. Fair use is evaluated by courts on a case-by-case basis.
IANAL, but I've read fairly extensively on the subject, and this is a common misconception that has been addressed by the USPTO and the UK equivalent on their FAQ and 'Copyright Myths' pages, if I recall correctly.
No, because Disney already owns the trademark which would apply to videogames. In the case that they did not, it would probably be covered by copyright law and derivative works. I am not a lawyer, but this seems pretty clear.
With all the shitty things that Disney has done in the past, this is the single one that bothers you? I mean, I don't blame you for being annoyed by this action, but only this one?
Can you suggest a decent smartphone with a physical keyboard that works on 1700/2100Mhz AWS? And by decent, I am looking for something roughly comparable with the Nexus S and not produced by RIM. And no, switching carriers is not an option, unless there are other carriers in both the US and Canada supporting the same frequencies and providing comparible service - in terms of price, coverage and customer service.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't _have_ to with iOS devices either, jailbreak and install whatever you like. But, that is beside the point. Google et al should not get a free pass simply because their platform isn't yet as locked down - you still cannot get these apps from the 'official' sources, and that is going to stop people (at least some of them) from informing themselves.
I said nothing about criminal intent, way to get needlessly defensive. In fact, if you take a look at the other posts I have made on this story I have said quite the opposite.
I passed a cop who was doing the speed limit in his cruiser. No radar gun required for that one. And yes, the cop noticed I was extremely amused by the entire situation, probably why I only got a warning and not a ticket - I was likely the most pleasant person he dealt with all day.
Yes, you can. I've known more than one person who got a dui riding a bicycle. The rationalization is that you can seriously hurt someone by hitting them with a bicycle, too. Personally, I got a written warning for speeding on a bicycle.
Now if we got more cyclists to understand that road laws affect them as well, I would be much happier when driving. Either you get to use crosswalks and be a pedestrian, or you get to move with traffic, not both. Get off the damn thing if you want pedestrian right-of-way.
Yet there is a similar restriction in the Android Market.
Not only that but for commercial drivers federal regulations put that limit at .04 and not .08. The part that isn't often mentioned about that is that it applies in personal vehicles as well.
To answer more directly, they do not have the right to stop you for no reason as I understand the law, there must be cause.
Operating commercial vehicles puts many more requirements on both the driver and the vehicle which are well publicized before you so much as step into the vehicle. There is no easy comparison to a typical operator license.
Unless the app happens to work in other countries which haven't historically been forward-thinking about these types of things, or has community supplied information on things such as stationary speed traps.
Just a guess, so don't read too much into that.
You were doing well up until that last sentence, which is sad as you only wrote three.
Google maps does not provide that feature on my phone, takes a long time to load and is unnecessarily complicated for my drive home which takes place between 12-3am. At those times, traffic is light, accidents rarely cause slowdowns, and construction is limited to well publicized major roadwork. The common slowdown is DUI checkpoints, which I prefer to avoid as they can take upwards of 45 minutes to pass through.
Also, I carry a commercial license, which due to federal law limits my BAC to below .04 (half of what the typical driver is allowed) and I am considered unable to drive if there is any detectable amount of alcohol. Yet these apps are still of use to me, despite the fact that drinking and driving carries harsher penalties for me and if I do drink, I ride with someone who hasn't been drinking, call a taxi, or simply walk.
Now, how are these the lamest of lame excuses, other than the fact you're upset these might be used by people at bars? I'm not the one being a danger on the road, your anger is misdirected. Keep your knee-jerk MADD reactions to yourself.
I don't remember if it is a US or Canadian commercial (I get television stations from all over the map here) but there is an advertising campaign to illustrate that exact point.
The tagline fits your comment pretty well, "Buzzed driving is drunk driving. Over the limit, under arrest."
Tacky as hell visuals though, about on par with any other PSA-type advert.
Or letting people who don't drink and drive avoid the inevitable slowdowns these checkpoints always cause.
I just want to drive home after work, not wait an extra 20+ minutes to explain to cops that I haven't been drinking that night.
Sure they have a legal leg to stand on, they don't want to publish those apps so they won't.
The constitution only says that the government may not limit free speech, it says nothing of corporations.
So, it makes perfect sense that an occasional traveller with a blackberry has to pay an added fee to use a feature built into the phone (tethering is there by default), yet I can stream audio and video all day long and not pay a dime more on the same 'unlimited' plan? Yes, streaming audio and video are features built into my phone as well, but I use far more data than any of those I know that tether - common sense would say I should pay more, but I don't. Granted, this is a small sample, yet it still makes no sense.
This is the current state of 'how the world works' 'in the real world' and those who aren't complaining are deluding themselves.
I understand quite well the need for more pricing tiers - after all, I admit I am one of those horrible abusive users. What seems silly is arguing higher prices for every user due to those few - or higher pricing for a specific application. All I am saying is that how a user chooses to use their allotment is irrelevant and should not reflect in the price other than how much data they actually use.
This isn't a case of only having two possible choices, however. The case you present is charge everybody more for a few users who use too much, or remove tethering apps from everyone across the board. Would it not be simpler to charge more for going over data usage cap, and leave the tethering apps for all those people who would like to use them on occasion? To me, it seems obvious to charge more for those who consume more, not charge more because a specific class of device just happens to be connected to the phone.
As stated above by someone else, why not charge for bluetooth capability as well? As we all know, people who own bluetooth headsets make more phone calls on average, so they should be charged more in general.
That is a much better analogy and one that is essentailly the same issue.
Bluetooth support, now only $15/month!
Yes, that they shouldn't, and shouldn't be allowed to. It's blatantly silly to anyone who sits and thinks about it for a minute or two.
It's like trying to enforce copy protection by clolsing the analog hole - sure, it can be done, but how the hell do we watch the movie now?
It is still a byte to your phone, it just doesn't stay there - where it goes is Verizon's concern, where it ends up is not.
Yet no one is asking for unlimited data to every device they happen to own, or carry. They are asking for the same data as always being delivered to their phone. What verizon et al are doing is limiting where that data can go once it gets to the phone.
This is probably a horrible analogy, and I am sure someone will point out why shortly but this is akin to saying that only you can make voice calls on your phone - you can't hand it to your buddy Fred because he forgot his phone and needs to call his wife. Now add to this that they are imposing technical limitations to make it difficult for someone else to make a call using your phone. It's the same voice minutes, they are still coming out of the allotment you pay for. It is the same for data.
Strangely enough, the irony would likely be lost on those who made the decision.
There is no 10% rule, or any other magic percentage to set the threshold of what is or isn't fair use. Fair use is evaluated by courts on a case-by-case basis.
IANAL, but I've read fairly extensively on the subject, and this is a common misconception that has been addressed by the USPTO and the UK equivalent on their FAQ and 'Copyright Myths' pages, if I recall correctly.
I'd say you'd be better off with +5 informative, just in case they're listening.
Your amazing talent for evading questions would serve wonderfully in politics, should you ever consider a career change.
No, because Disney already owns the trademark which would apply to videogames. In the case that they did not, it would probably be covered by copyright law and derivative works. I am not a lawyer, but this seems pretty clear.
With all the shitty things that Disney has done in the past, this is the single one that bothers you? I mean, I don't blame you for being annoyed by this action, but only this one?
Can you suggest a decent smartphone with a physical keyboard that works on 1700/2100Mhz AWS? And by decent, I am looking for something roughly comparable with the Nexus S and not produced by RIM. And no, switching carriers is not an option, unless there are other carriers in both the US and Canada supporting the same frequencies and providing comparible service - in terms of price, coverage and customer service.