They're so thin that they have to shrink the screen to make room for all the ports at the sides/edges. Probably the reason for getting rid of the ports - the obsession with thinness.
Waterproofing is for two reasons: 1) Have you not noticed how every phone has a moisture detection strip inside? They're the ones denying warranty claims and getting class action lawsuits settled against them ($53M) for not covering phones that sustained water damage.
2) Have you ever taken electronics outside on a hot humid day when the electronics are cold from air conditioning? That can condense a LOT of water inside some very sensitive areas.
Thankfully Charter is re-branding itself and TWC as "Spectrum" so that association in people's minds should go away in half a decade or so.
Is that really for real, though? I thought it was more like Comcast's Xfinity. Name your product something different, pretend it's your company's name but never actually change the company name.
Honestly, that just adds to the confusion even more (I'm in a Charter region).
OP said "throughout the city." LTE isn't a landline-replacement in the city - only rural.
Maybe they won't roll fiber unless they're obligated to - but that means it's pretty likely they won't want to maintain BOTH anywhere. Rolling out fiber means maintaining fiber AND copper. I'm pretty sure they're legally obligated not to rip out functioning copper.
I know that all of these "Time"s have spun off, but had they formed independently they'd all be suing each other over trademark infringement. They may be all in different industries, but they're all large enough that it causes the same kind of confusion that trademark protection was supposed to prevent.
You description of why it's not the same "legally speaking" is entirely in technical speak. One program calling another entirely separate program is exactly what it's like. You're just swapping a library API interface with command line arguments and STDIN/STDOUT.
Whether the memory space is shared is nothing to do with the legal text of the GPL.
>. But on the other side they want the right to clone proprietary APIs without adhering to the license Cloning an API is not 'linking to a library' and until just a few months ago no court had ever considered it a copyrightable thing. Even then API cloning was held to be fair use - so it's still not an issue, and not a conflict at all. And yes, you are perfectly allowed to clone the API of a GPL'd library without GPL-ing your code, as long as you implement the library yourself.
You can create a shell script that requires certain programs to already be installed on your system for it to work (almost exactly like dynamic linking, legally speaking). You don't have to create your own implementation of these programs in order to not fall under the GPL yourself.
That is the point. It's all voter intimidation. Wearing a campaign T-shirt to the polling place may seem innocent, but if you end up being one of 30 people there doing the same thing, it may make someone feel unsafe voting for someone else.
The actual polling place is another place where freedom of speech is considerably restricted to help protect the vote.
I don't know about that. If they had gone further earlier, we might have a different Democratic nominee. If she were to drop out of the race now, Trump might be up against a write-in Democratic candidate.
What if it was a room full of people saying it? Enough people and it's serious voter intimidation. People need to feel safe going to the polls - even if they're going to vote for an unpopular candidate.
This is the part that's a bit hard to prove and the reason for the laws in the first place. If you are being coerced to vote for a certain candidate, and must take a photo or else, that's not evident. This is the only safe way.
And voting is one of the more important forms of free speech. If your vote is influenced by being coerced to provide evidence of voting for the "right" candidate, this infringes on freedom of speech, so outlawing the photos actually helps protect those rights.
Which means you'd never prove that the corruption happened unless you just outlaw the photo in the first place. This protects people. It's not like this couldn't have happened 30 years ago with a Polaroid.
Slashdot Mirror
Most fracking is directed at natural gas, not oil.
They're so thin that they have to shrink the screen to make room for all the ports at the sides/edges. Probably the reason for getting rid of the ports - the obsession with thinness.
Waterproofing is for two reasons:
1) Have you not noticed how every phone has a moisture detection strip inside? They're the ones denying warranty claims and getting class action lawsuits settled against them ($53M) for not covering phones that sustained water damage.
2) Have you ever taken electronics outside on a hot humid day when the electronics are cold from air conditioning? That can condense a LOT of water inside some very sensitive areas.
many successful designs already on the market
Well I'm sure it won't use the same standards, like Qi. Apple have gone full-Sony and won't use something that someone else has already used first.
No - the increase in trust is a symptom of aging. Longer ago, there were snake oil salesmen and no FDA. There have always been scammers around.
Thankfully Charter is re-branding itself and TWC as "Spectrum" so that association in people's minds should go away in half a decade or so.
Is that really for real, though? I thought it was more like Comcast's Xfinity. Name your product something different, pretend it's your company's name but never actually change the company name.
Honestly, that just adds to the confusion even more (I'm in a Charter region).
OP said "throughout the city." LTE isn't a landline-replacement in the city - only rural.
Maybe they won't roll fiber unless they're obligated to - but that means it's pretty likely they won't want to maintain BOTH anywhere. Rolling out fiber means maintaining fiber AND copper. I'm pretty sure they're legally obligated not to rip out functioning copper.
They've made a choice to not maintain their network infrastructure
It's what all the big boys are doing. If they can rot out their copper, they can stop dealing with it and replace with fiber.
I know that all of these "Time"s have spun off, but had they formed independently they'd all be suing each other over trademark infringement. They may be all in different industries, but they're all large enough that it causes the same kind of confusion that trademark protection was supposed to prevent.
The GPL says no such thing. I just read it again. Citation needed.
You description of why it's not the same "legally speaking" is entirely in technical speak. One program calling another entirely separate program is exactly what it's like. You're just swapping a library API interface with command line arguments and STDIN/STDOUT.
Whether the memory space is shared is nothing to do with the legal text of the GPL.
>. But on the other side they want the right to clone proprietary APIs without adhering to the license
Cloning an API is not 'linking to a library' and until just a few months ago no court had ever considered it a copyrightable thing. Even then API cloning was held to be fair use - so it's still not an issue, and not a conflict at all. And yes, you are perfectly allowed to clone the API of a GPL'd library without GPL-ing your code, as long as you implement the library yourself.
You can create a shell script that requires certain programs to already be installed on your system for it to work (almost exactly like dynamic linking, legally speaking). You don't have to create your own implementation of these programs in order to not fall under the GPL yourself.
That is the point. It's all voter intimidation. Wearing a campaign T-shirt to the polling place may seem innocent, but if you end up being one of 30 people there doing the same thing, it may make someone feel unsafe voting for someone else.
The actual polling place is another place where freedom of speech is considerably restricted to help protect the vote.
There is no other likelihood at this point.
FTFY. Anyone can still win as a write-in, provided they meet the other requirements for presidency.
I don't know about that. If they had gone further earlier, we might have a different Democratic nominee. If she were to drop out of the race now, Trump might be up against a write-in Democratic candidate.
That's the whole discussion. Bringing camera-enabled phones into a polling place is no more or less illegal.
Having used both, I'd rather not have either one. Even if it means buying an external.
civil rights act gave special treatment to certain people that didn't apply to others.
Are you sure there's any such thing in the 1964 act? I don't believe there is.
But then a CNC machine can achieve a level of carpentry skill that is beyond mine, but I don't ascribe intelligence to it.
Right, but you don't call it an artificial carpenter.
If self-aware "AI" is ever created, it will no longer be artificial.
What if it was a room full of people saying it? Enough people and it's serious voter intimidation. People need to feel safe going to the polls - even if they're going to vote for an unpopular candidate.
free to do so.
This is the part that's a bit hard to prove and the reason for the laws in the first place. If you are being coerced to vote for a certain candidate, and must take a photo or else, that's not evident. This is the only safe way.
Making it illegal to post your "Ballot Selfie" on social media
That's why the law actually bans all photos and is much older than the "selfie."
Public postings on social media are among the easiest to catch, so they're getting some news attention.
that's freedom of speech.
That's also electioneering. And illegal.
And voting is one of the more important forms of free speech. If your vote is influenced by being coerced to provide evidence of voting for the "right" candidate, this infringes on freedom of speech, so outlawing the photos actually helps protect those rights.
Which means you'd never prove that the corruption happened unless you just outlaw the photo in the first place. This protects people. It's not like this couldn't have happened 30 years ago with a Polaroid.