It has been a while since I researched the GPL version 2, but this is my understanding on your requirements to distribute the source: You either have to include the source with the binary, or give it to anyone who requests it. If you don't include the source then you have to give it to absolutely anyone who requests it. If you do include the source with the binary then you are under no further obligation.
You could always run apps while on a call with the iPhone. Multitasking brought the ability for apps to save their state, so they didn't start from scratch when you opened them.
A jailbreak is still available. You just have to plug it into a computer and run an application. This specific jailbreak was popular because all it required was to visit a website.
well they make sure someone sees the source code...
Q: Will the source code be available to the public? A: No. The EAC will make all information available to the public consistent with Federal law. The EAC is prohibited under the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905) from making the source code information available to the public. However, the test labs will examine the source code to ensure compliance with the voluntary voting system guidelines. Test plans, test reports, and other information about the test labs and the voting system manufacturers are available on the EAC Web site (www.eac.gov).
I'll admit that is a clever solution for spoofing the address bar. I had what I considered to be a legitimate reason a while back to spoof an address bar, and was disappointed that it wasn't trivial to do. Never considered spoofing it like that.
(The legitimate reason being that a site is changing links inside frames, so the location bar never changes, and I wanted the user to be able to bookmark any page)
Why would javascript allow someone to change the address bar? Might as well just let a web page run random binary code on my computer while we're at it.
VoIP & IM apps that take away their call and message revenue
I don't really believe this point. I have 3rd party apps on my iPhone, including AIM. I still continue to use text messages instead of AIM because of their superior quality. I am willing to pay for the simple fact that I know my recipient will receive the message.
And e-mail is already built into the iPhone, and as long as I stay in the USA it is free anyway. So it's not like they aren't already providing a "free" alternative.
You don't need a contract to buy an iPhone. You can buy as many of them as you want for the regular price. Using it requires activation, which requires a 2-year contract. Once activated the phone is locked to that one sim card, and will not work with any others.
being forced to pay for something you never supported to begin with
I know just how he feels...I got put on house arrest and was forced to purchase a plain old analog phone line without any calling features to help them monitor me. Felt like a step back
What more should they be doing to verify the identity of the people they are suing? I haven't followed every detail of these cases, but it has been my understanding that they have had trouble identifying the people through legal means. Do they contact the people in question before suing them? I definitely think that is important, as a lawsuit should be used as a last resort. Many years ago, I used to send Simpsons episodes over IRC to people a few days before they were ever on TV. I got a letter from my University stating that they had received a complaint, and I could be subject to civil action if I didn't stop what I was doing. I was happy to do it. I suppose they could have sued me right off the bat, but sometimes all it takes is a warning.
If I wanted to sue somebody on the internet, then I am sure I would also have trouble finding somebody's identity. For example, somebody starts posting my telephone number and address on the internet saying I was some big racist (a lie), and then because of that people start bombarding my phone with calls and vandalizing my house. I might decide I want to sue that person (I don't know the law as to whether or not I have a case, but you get the idea). How would I go about identifying the person, when all I know is their IP address and when they were online sending stuff about me. I would think after taking reasonable steps to identify the person in question, it would be reasonable for me to initiate a lawsuit. As long as I didn't do anything too ridiculous, I don't believe it would be frivolous.
Of course I don't know what the RIAA is doing to identify the people they sue, so I am not trying to give any opinions here about whether or not they are doing it correctly.
I think your point is wrong because these lawsuits aren't frivolous. Don't get me wrong, I've downloaded thousands of songs, and have never once purchased a CD. But doesn't the RIAA have some significant legal backing for what they are doing?
I understand that they've made some mistakes suing people who were not responsible, but I am betting a majority of the people sued were sharing copyrighted files. Are they making a large number of errors? I've only heard of a few. I'm sure it would be better if they made less mistakes.
Are you saying the lawsuits are frivolous because you believe people should just be able to share whatever they want on the internet? Maybe we should get the copyright laws changed if so many people think that is the case.
"if the legal system wasn't so f'd up in this country, nobody would be able to get away with suing for everything and anything just..."
In a way I think that's what makes the system work. If judges threw out too many cases right away, then we wouldn't think it is fair because the judge is exercising too much power. There should be a right to the jury, if it can be shown that there is some basis for the lawsuit. People should have a fair right to sue other people if they think their point is valid. Of course that's not to say there should be no consequences, I just think they should be as fair as possible. I'll admit I haven't read RTFA, but I assume Net2phone has a valid patent, which I assume might mean they have a legitimate lawsuit. I'm not saying that patent is legitimate, but I assume it has been issued. Sounds like the problem is with the patent system, not the justice system.
Slashdot Mirror
Good question. That's part do the reason I have an iPhone. Less carrier involvement in everything.
It would be nice if it were faster. I backed up and downloaded the pictures off my iPhone to my computer today. How long did it take? 3 hours.
In this case they are giving a bumper case that resolves the issue. Seems fair.
It has been a while since I researched the GPL version 2, but this is my understanding on your requirements to distribute the source:
You either have to include the source with the binary, or give it to anyone who requests it. If you don't include the source then you have to give it to absolutely anyone who requests it. If you do include the source with the binary then you are under no further obligation.
You could always run apps while on a call with the iPhone. Multitasking brought the ability for apps to save their state, so they didn't start from scratch when you opened them.
Can I get this same training then so I can talk on my cell phone?
A jailbreak is still available. You just have to plug it into a computer and run an application. This specific jailbreak was popular because all it required was to visit a website.
Reasons to jailbreak-
Custom SMS sounds (though I hear that is fixed in iOS 5)
Developing applications for your own device.
I'm not sure if I'd call needing to use NAT with private IPs for a little while during the transition "disastrous"
hell, you can buy the whole company for a dollar
I'll admit that is a clever solution for spoofing the address bar.
I had what I considered to be a legitimate reason a while back to spoof an address bar, and was disappointed that it wasn't trivial to do. Never considered spoofing it like that.
(The legitimate reason being that a site is changing links inside frames, so the location bar never changes, and I wanted the user to be able to bookmark any page)
Why would javascript allow someone to change the address bar? Might as well just let a web page run random binary code on my computer while we're at it.
How did you learn they voted democrat? Did somebody give out a list of all the voters, as well as who they voted for?
You don't need a contract to buy an iPhone. You can buy as many of them as you want for the regular price. Using it requires activation, which requires a 2-year contract. Once activated the phone is locked to that one sim card, and will not work with any others.
well luckilly his link has the correct information
So why didn't you plug in your existing cable into the wall before he got there, and then show him it was already working when he came in?
The lumber bug!
What more should they be doing to verify the identity of the people they are suing? I haven't followed every detail of these cases, but it has been my understanding that they have had trouble identifying the people through legal means.
Do they contact the people in question before suing them? I definitely think that is important, as a lawsuit should be used as a last resort. Many years ago, I used to send Simpsons episodes over IRC to people a few days before they were ever on TV. I got a letter from my University stating that they had received a complaint, and I could be subject to civil action if I didn't stop what I was doing. I was happy to do it. I suppose they could have sued me right off the bat, but sometimes all it takes is a warning.
If I wanted to sue somebody on the internet, then I am sure I would also have trouble finding somebody's identity. For example, somebody starts posting my telephone number and address on the internet saying I was some big racist (a lie), and then because of that people start bombarding my phone with calls and vandalizing my house. I might decide I want to sue that person (I don't know the law as to whether or not I have a case, but you get the idea). How would I go about identifying the person, when all I know is their IP address and when they were online sending stuff about me. I would think after taking reasonable steps to identify the person in question, it would be reasonable for me to initiate a lawsuit. As long as I didn't do anything too ridiculous, I don't believe it would be frivolous.
Of course I don't know what the RIAA is doing to identify the people they sue, so I am not trying to give any opinions here about whether or not they are doing it correctly.
I think your point is wrong because these lawsuits aren't frivolous. Don't get me wrong, I've downloaded thousands of songs, and have never once purchased a CD. But doesn't the RIAA have some significant legal backing for what they are doing?
I understand that they've made some mistakes suing people who were not responsible, but I am betting a majority of the people sued were sharing copyrighted files. Are they making a large number of errors? I've only heard of a few. I'm sure it would be better if they made less mistakes.
Are you saying the lawsuits are frivolous because you believe people should just be able to share whatever they want on the internet? Maybe we should get the copyright laws changed if so many people think that is the case.
How did they still bill your account if you changed the number? I thought the whole point of changing the number is so that doesn't happen.
That being said, I think it is a good idea to get a new credit card number every now and then, partly for these types of reasons.
Not to make light of this particular situation, but I think $30 million dollars would help me get over almost anything.
"if the legal system wasn't so f'd up in this country, nobody would be able to get away with suing for everything and anything just..."
In a way I think that's what makes the system work. If judges threw out too many cases right away, then we wouldn't think it is fair because the judge is exercising too much power. There should be a right to the jury, if it can be shown that there is some basis for the lawsuit. People should have a fair right to sue other people if they think their point is valid. Of course that's not to say there should be no consequences, I just think they should be as fair as possible.
I'll admit I haven't read RTFA, but I assume Net2phone has a valid patent, which I assume might mean they have a legitimate lawsuit. I'm not saying that patent is legitimate, but I assume it has been issued. Sounds like the problem is with the patent system, not the justice system.