Remember, they don't need 100% absolute perfect proof (which never exists for any case anywhere), they need to remove 'reasonable doubt' from the mind of the jury. Every defendant in every case can say 'it wasn't me' or 'I was framed'. That is not enough to remove 'reasonable' doubt.
You're right that it doesn't matter, but as a point of clarification it was not the 'cheaper' devices that had problems, it was the very expensive high-precision ones. If those devices had any steeper filters the precision would go right down the toilet and the device would be useless.
It was allocated for satellite communications. They wanted to use it for terrestrial communications. The FCC didn't think that would work, so they gave them a provisional license so they could demonstrate that it would not interfere. They failed.
Have a look at (a href="http://trl.trimble.com/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-140079/022543-079K_TrimbleR8GNSS_DS_0412_LR_sec.pdf"> this. Positioning to 3mm. These are not hand-held consumer units.
Oh, bullshit. The question is not does Apple make OS's for other products, it is can anyone else make stuff for Apple's product. Microsoft did not get in trouble because it made browsers that ran on other OS's, it got in trouble because they made it difficult for someone else to make (and sell) a browser for THEIR OS. IBM did not get in trouble because they made software that ran on other systems, they got in trouble because they made it difficult for others to make software that ran on IBMs systems.
Say what??? "Apple just defends their own market..." WTF does that mean? Does Apple have some kind of natural right to some market? If so, exactly what is that market? Did Apple invent the music store? No, but they sure seem to want to rule that market. Did they invent the MP3 player? No, but they sure seem to want to rule that market. Oh, I know! They invented the smartphone! Nope, but again they seem to want to rule that market. Well, it must be that they invented tablets then. Nope, wrong again.
Well, it is fitting that you chose those three examples, because they do perfectly illustrate the situation.
Ghandi and Rosa Parks (and other civil rights leaders) were not anonymous. You knew who they were. They did not hide out like cowards. They were willing to undergo much personal sacrifice for what they believed in. And perhaps most importantly, you knew exactly what they were unhappy with, and you knew exactly what changes they wanted to remedy the situation. The situations they put themselves in shined a light on the problems, and a public who hadn't given these issues much thought could see how unfair the situations were. The public could see that the changes demanded would either positively affect them directly, or at the very least would correct some injustices without having too negative an impact on their lives.
The Unabomber on the other hand was anonymous. Nobody knew who he was or what he wanted, only that he was out to cause harm. When he finally did get his manifesto published the public could see that this was just some nut who basically hated everything about modern society. There was no specific grievance that could be addressed. He had zero support from the public, and all his actions accomplished was getting him locked up.
Anonymous (and Occupy, for that matter) are far closer to the Unabomber than the first two. Nobody knows who they are, there is no face to associate with the 'movement'. Nobody knows what it is that they want (which seems to change with the wind), only that they seem to hate everything and everyone. They have zero public support, and are unlikely to ever gain any using the tactics they have chosen. They are in no way 'game-changers', they are simple nuisances to be dealt with.
What exactly is 'the issue'? Also, getting the online community to talk does not require power. On the other hand, getting the online community to shut up would demonstrate real power.
Can we stop with this stupid meme already? 15 years is the MAXIMUM sentence he COULD receive if convicted on all counts. Do you know what the maximum sentence is for murder? Life in prison without possibility of parole, or death, depending on where you are.
Exactly. It seems to me that in order to be considered 'powerful' you must be capable of making others bend to your will. Exactly what has this so-called 'powerful' organization done other than annoy people?
Pumping the brakes is exactly what you were taught to do (and the exact phrase used) before anti-lock brakes. Press and release the brakes rapidly in order to prevent the wheels from locking up.
So you don't think education is a valid societal concern? You don't think education is important public policy? You don't think the problems caused by an uneducated population far outweigh the costs of educating the population? Or is it that you do want an educated society and the benefits thereof, but simply don't want to pay your share? Either way, you are an idiot.
Did it ever occur to you that people may value things differently?
Maybe Photoshop users enjoy the freedom being able to hire any artist without special training. Maybe they enjoy the freedom to be able to go to any art school, photography school, community college, or vo-tec program and get quality training on the product. Maybe they enjoy the freedom to get a job at any professional shop that does graphics work. Maybe they enjoy the freedom of being able to send files to and from their clients. Maybe they enjoy the freedom of being able to take in more business because they are using tools they are proficient with. Maybe they enjoy the freedom to go to Amazon and buy any of countless books on Photoshop usage and technique. Maybe the enjoy the freedom to express themselves through their art without having to work around uncomfortable tools.
Your idea of freedom seems to consist solely of being able to avoid the cost of maintaining the tools your livelihood depends on. I think most professionals have far different ideas of what freedom means to them.
Hmm, he put effective in quotes. Must mean something important. Let's see, what does effective mean - "actual; not merely potential or theoretical". So, in other words, an "effective" tax rate of 24% is ACTUALLY 24% of their profit.
Watching your actions is entirely different from preventing you from doing something or assuming your guilt before you have committed another crime. Sure, watch Microsoft all you want, but remember that the crime they committed was abuse of a dominant position. Until such time as they get a dominant position in the tablet market they are unable to be commit that crime again.
Yes, the purchaser owns the computer, and he can run whatever he wants on it, including running an OS other than Windows. Microsoft is not dictating what you can do with your computer, they are saying what can be done with their OS.
Microsoft was convicted of using a dominant position in one area (desktop OS) to gain an unfair (anticompetitive) advantage in another area (browsers). Microsoft has no monopoly in the ARM tablet market, so they should be (and are, legally) held to the same standard as everyone else who does not have a dominant position in that area.
Fascinating. I guess that is why I wrote 'digital files need constant maintenance (moving to new devices, etc).'
As soon as one person (including you) neglects that maintenance, your files are gone.
The submitters question is not silly at all. Paper is certainly not perfect, but it is way ahead of digital for surviving neglect and still being useful.
As for your granite comment - you are aware that stone that was engraved thousands of years ago is still readable, right? What do you think the chances are that a neglected digital file from 30 years ago is still usable (without going through some very expensive forensics process)?
Sure, you can get a USB to RS232 converter. How many non-geeks have one? Would the drivers for your RS-232 drive (probably made for DOS or Amiga or Apple II) still be available and work on today's hardware/software?
You seem to have missed the point entirely.
BTW - "I've got a feeling" is a pretty poor way to plan for archive accessibility.
Imagine this: your 90 year old grandmother dies, and you are helping clean out her house. You come across a box of old photos. There are pictures of her parents, pictures of her as a little girl, pictures of your mother as a child. etc. A wealth of history and memories.
Now, imagine this: you are helping your daughter move into college. You come across a box of 15 year old ZIP drives. What the hell are you going to do with them??
Digital storage absolutely sucks for things like photos. It requires constant maintenance (moving to new devices, backing up, transferring to different formats, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, they don't need 100% absolute perfect proof (which never exists for any case anywhere), they need to remove 'reasonable doubt' from the mind of the jury. Every defendant in every case can say 'it wasn't me' or 'I was framed'. That is not enough to remove 'reasonable' doubt.
You're right that it doesn't matter, but as a point of clarification it was not the 'cheaper' devices that had problems, it was the very expensive high-precision ones. If those devices had any steeper filters the precision would go right down the toilet and the device would be useless.
It was allocated for satellite communications. They wanted to use it for terrestrial communications. The FCC didn't think that would work, so they gave them a provisional license so they could demonstrate that it would not interfere. They failed.
Grr. Corrected link
Have a look at (a href="http://trl.trimble.com/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-140079/022543-079K_TrimbleR8GNSS_DS_0412_LR_sec.pdf"> this. Positioning to 3mm. These are not hand-held consumer units.
I believe it was all the fault of physics, not the GPS devices.
That is true, but it still has absolutely nothing nothing to do with what the GP said and was somehow modded insightful.
Oh, bullshit. The question is not does Apple make OS's for other products, it is can anyone else make stuff for Apple's product. Microsoft did not get in trouble because it made browsers that ran on other OS's, it got in trouble because they made it difficult for someone else to make (and sell) a browser for THEIR OS. IBM did not get in trouble because they made software that ran on other systems, they got in trouble because they made it difficult for others to make software that ran on IBMs systems.
Say what??? "Apple just defends their own market..." WTF does that mean? Does Apple have some kind of natural right to some market? If so, exactly what is that market? Did Apple invent the music store? No, but they sure seem to want to rule that market. Did they invent the MP3 player? No, but they sure seem to want to rule that market. Oh, I know! They invented the smartphone! Nope, but again they seem to want to rule that market. Well, it must be that they invented tablets then. Nope, wrong again.
Well, it is fitting that you chose those three examples, because they do perfectly illustrate the situation.
Ghandi and Rosa Parks (and other civil rights leaders) were not anonymous. You knew who they were. They did not hide out like cowards. They were willing to undergo much personal sacrifice for what they believed in. And perhaps most importantly, you knew exactly what they were unhappy with, and you knew exactly what changes they wanted to remedy the situation. The situations they put themselves in shined a light on the problems, and a public who hadn't given these issues much thought could see how unfair the situations were. The public could see that the changes demanded would either positively affect them directly, or at the very least would correct some injustices without having too negative an impact on their lives.
The Unabomber on the other hand was anonymous. Nobody knew who he was or what he wanted, only that he was out to cause harm. When he finally did get his manifesto published the public could see that this was just some nut who basically hated everything about modern society. There was no specific grievance that could be addressed. He had zero support from the public, and all his actions accomplished was getting him locked up.
Anonymous (and Occupy, for that matter) are far closer to the Unabomber than the first two. Nobody knows who they are, there is no face to associate with the 'movement'. Nobody knows what it is that they want (which seems to change with the wind), only that they seem to hate everything and everyone. They have zero public support, and are unlikely to ever gain any using the tactics they have chosen. They are in no way 'game-changers', they are simple nuisances to be dealt with.
What exactly is 'the issue'? Also, getting the online community to talk does not require power. On the other hand, getting the online community to shut up would demonstrate real power.
Can we stop with this stupid meme already? 15 years is the MAXIMUM sentence he COULD receive if convicted on all counts. Do you know what the maximum sentence is for murder? Life in prison without possibility of parole, or death, depending on where you are.
Exactly. It seems to me that in order to be considered 'powerful' you must be capable of making others bend to your will. Exactly what has this so-called 'powerful' organization done other than annoy people?
Pumping the brakes is exactly what you were taught to do (and the exact phrase used) before anti-lock brakes. Press and release the brakes rapidly in order to prevent the wheels from locking up.
So you don't think education is a valid societal concern? You don't think education is important public policy? You don't think the problems caused by an uneducated population far outweigh the costs of educating the population? Or is it that you do want an educated society and the benefits thereof, but simply don't want to pay your share? Either way, you are an idiot.
It is not a UPS rule, it is an international civil aviation rule. No lithium batteries in mail shipments on international commercial flights.
Please explain how UPS are extortionists.
Did it ever occur to you that people may value things differently?
Maybe Photoshop users enjoy the freedom being able to hire any artist without special training. Maybe they enjoy the freedom to be able to go to any art school, photography school, community college, or vo-tec program and get quality training on the product. Maybe they enjoy the freedom to get a job at any professional shop that does graphics work. Maybe they enjoy the freedom of being able to send files to and from their clients. Maybe they enjoy the freedom of being able to take in more business because they are using tools they are proficient with. Maybe they enjoy the freedom to go to Amazon and buy any of countless books on Photoshop usage and technique. Maybe the enjoy the freedom to express themselves through their art without having to work around uncomfortable tools.
Your idea of freedom seems to consist solely of being able to avoid the cost of maintaining the tools your livelihood depends on. I think most professionals have far different ideas of what freedom means to them.
Hmm, he put effective in quotes. Must mean something important. Let's see, what does effective mean - "actual; not merely potential or theoretical". So, in other words, an "effective" tax rate of 24% is ACTUALLY 24% of their profit.
Watching your actions is entirely different from preventing you from doing something or assuming your guilt before you have committed another crime. Sure, watch Microsoft all you want, but remember that the crime they committed was abuse of a dominant position. Until such time as they get a dominant position in the tablet market they are unable to be commit that crime again.
Yes, the purchaser owns the computer, and he can run whatever he wants on it, including running an OS other than Windows. Microsoft is not dictating what you can do with your computer, they are saying what can be done with their OS.
Microsoft was convicted of using a dominant position in one area (desktop OS) to gain an unfair (anticompetitive) advantage in another area (browsers). Microsoft has no monopoly in the ARM tablet market, so they should be (and are, legally) held to the same standard as everyone else who does not have a dominant position in that area.
Fascinating. I guess that is why I wrote 'digital files need constant maintenance (moving to new devices, etc).'
As soon as one person (including you) neglects that maintenance, your files are gone.
The submitters question is not silly at all. Paper is certainly not perfect, but it is way ahead of digital for surviving neglect and still being useful.
As for your granite comment - you are aware that stone that was engraved thousands of years ago is still readable, right? What do you think the chances are that a neglected digital file from 30 years ago is still usable (without going through some very expensive forensics process)?
Sure, you can get a USB to RS232 converter. How many non-geeks have one? Would the drivers for your RS-232 drive (probably made for DOS or Amiga or Apple II) still be available and work on today's hardware/software?
You seem to have missed the point entirely.
BTW - "I've got a feeling" is a pretty poor way to plan for archive accessibility.
Imagine this: your 90 year old grandmother dies, and you are helping clean out her house. You come across a box of old photos. There are pictures of her parents, pictures of her as a little girl, pictures of your mother as a child. etc. A wealth of history and memories.
Now, imagine this: you are helping your daughter move into college. You come across a box of 15 year old ZIP drives. What the hell are you going to do with them??
Digital storage absolutely sucks for things like photos. It requires constant maintenance (moving to new devices, backing up, transferring to different formats, etc).