The logic of this article seems to be one person has changed their mind about something, therefore everyone else with similar beliefs is also wrong, and valid concerns such as the ones you raise can suddenly be ignored.
Here's a review of a Z2670 tablet which you claim runs DirectX.
"One of the limitations of the W510's Intel Graphics Media Accelerator GPU is that it's not DirectX 11 compatible, so our standard 3DMark11 benchmark wouldn't run. You can forget about playing "World of Warcraft," too.Even when effects were set to low, the W510 averaged just 12 fps, and even hung up during our test flights." 'Quite Fast' my ass. http://www.laptopmag.com/acer-iconia-w510.aspx Posted Dec 28.
> You can see where I am smugly going here. That is exactly what TFA was all about. In act, it also said:
>> Atom chips will move to an entirely new design later this year that is expected to get them closer to Intel's mainstream processors in performance.
I own quite a few Atom PCs and in terms of performance, I think Atom's are quite okay. They're not big on grunt, but still sufficiently powerful to do anything you throw at it EXCEPT 3D. That's their big weakness. Office, web services, software development, yeah fine. Even video transcoding: slower than a desktop, but it will get there. But 3D? No. 3D is ithe new black so that's a deal breaker for many. A wise man summed it up nicely: "I'd rather have a mediocre CPU and a fast GPU than the other way around."
Intel really needs to get its act together: It's Atom processors are a decent low power x86 solution, but as usual Intel has delivered them with a crappy 3D graphics to the point the graphical benchmarks can't even run on them, let alone any recent computer games. For the Atom Cedar Trail release they didn't even do DX10 drivers, and sheepishly back-speced it to the now outdated DX9. ARM tablets can deliver decent 3D, so why can't Intel? Even AMD can provide 3D graphics for low-power PCs. Why can't Intel? And Intel wonders why it's becoming irrelevant to the future of computing!?
We've reached the point where no one can do anything without violating someone elses patents. At the multinational corporations this has produced a ridiculous deadlock where no one can sell anything. I propose we (i) dismantle the patent system, (ii) throw out any congressman who stands in our way and (iii) finally turn the USPTO staff and patent laywers into soylnet green.
> The star rating has become how people view if a book is a success and it has become inherently corrupt.
The star rating system is riddled with rubbish like "The book arrived on time and was in good condition. Would definitely recommend this seller. 10/10" and often worse "This book was late and the damaged. 0/10".
That is, the Amazon rating system is a rating of the SELLER, and seldom the book! The uselessness of this has been pointed out to Amazon but instead of telling customers to review the book and not the seller (the easy way), they've added a stupid "Is this review useful?" button which doesn't fix the erroneous star ratings. Amazon have an awesome resource, a user-based rating of nearly every book on the planet, and they squandered it out of sheer laziness by their IT staff and management. Crazy they are cracking down on author reviews without fixing this.
Imagine if the Star Wars universe was "updated"* to reflect the latest recording technology. Not only would R2D2 have hi-def, but everyone would be walking around the Star Wars universe twittering and watching movies on their smartphones. If the population of Alderaan was a bunch of smartphone addicts then when the Death Star wipes them out a million souls would text in terror "OMG! WTF!" and rush to update their Facebook status before they were vaporized, but a billion more would cheer the Death Star on.
* Don't worry. George has sold it to the Mouse. He can destroy your child hood memories no more.
> (If you have journal access, or don't mind forking over $40, you can read the original paper.)
You might ask why the journal is charging $40. Usually the journals - run by companies - have nothing to do with writing the original paper, contributing only academic review (possibly by unpaid volunteers) and publishing. They won't print the article unless the author signs a copyright transfer agreement which means they no longer own the copyright, and can't even put the paper on their own website. It's a ripoff, but academic institutions made the mistake of crediting publications by their employees which count towards promotions. The academic publishers in turn charge institutions extortionate rates - many thousands of dollars - to see papers by other academics they didn't pay a cent for. These people are the academic version of the RIAA: Redundant Middle-men ripping off both sides. There are papers written as far back as the 1960s which academic publishing companies still hold copyright over, standing in the way of ongoing research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_transfer_agreement
"Princeton goes open access to stop staff handing all copyright to journals - unless waiver granted " - http://theconversation.edu.au/princeton-goes-open-access-to-stop-staff-handing-all-copyright-to-journals-unless-waiver-granted-3596
"One of disadvantages of this publishing model, is that the published research is only available to those researchers who have a subscription to the journal or can afford to buy the book. Often subscription and book costs are prohibitively expensive. Many libraries, particularly smaller ones, cannot afford these subscriptions." - http://www.unimelb.edu.au/copyright/information/new/research/publishing.html
> I do not, for the life of me, understand why FireFox is so hell-bent on 32-bit versions.
Same here. I've been running Waterfox for some months now on a low-end 64-bit desktop PC. It's very fast, and I've not had any plugin or extension problems. Given what a pig Firefox is for memory (and to be fair Chrome and the other browsers too) if there is one application that should drive 64-bit technology it should be these damned web browsers!
"Taps" has become a bogus oversensationalized headline, as if there is some great honor fought for by many that some lucky soul is blessed by God to be given the opportunity to perform.
But it's really just a dishonest synonym for "ask": "USAF asks ESPN to compile drone highlight video" or if money has changed hands: "USAF pays ESPN to compile highlight video."
Lets have some truth in language and get rid of these bullshit words.
This is perfect for me. I love sports, so long as I'm the one watching them and not playing them. I hate exercise. I love TV, eating and shopping, but carrying my purchases around the shopping center is hard work. Oh yeah I can use a push trolley, but they don't always go all the way out to the car park. And even if they do, how am I supposed to lift them into the trunk and get them out again? Do I look like Superman? So it's great to see DARPA producing technology with civilian applications, and just in time for Xmas! But I want it smaller, with speed stripes and a spoiler, so back to the drawing board I am afraid. But perhaps these civilian versions can pave the way for a later military version? America will be grateful. signed, Grateful taxpayer.
Lawyers go wherever the money is. The sort of fly-by-night conmen who used to rip people off with bogus real estate deals can now rip millions off companies quite legally by buying a bullshit patent and threatening anyone and everyone. Lawyers love this shit, and that's why these two have set off hand-in-hand to rob and pillage the tech industry.
Apple might design nice looking products, but ethically they are pretty bad. If there was a company like this around when Apple were starting up they would have been buried under lawsuits before they could even get off the ground. That's bad for the tech industry.
> One of the qualifications of a patent is that it is non-obvious to a professional in that industry. That is pretty well ignored when most patents that I see litigated are 100% obvious to people well outside that area. Keyboards on a cell phone for texting. Wow that must have take a room full of geniuses working since Edison to work out that combo.
The law is an ass, especially the Adversarial system of law practiced in the US where lawyers dispute everything, no matter how obvious. They say "In my opinion, my client's patent is most certainly not obvious and my client has a strong case." Rules forbid lawyers from bringing weak cases "without merit", but the lawyer simply insist they believe their case is strong and the judge (also a lawyer) will agree the only way to sort it out is in court, at great expense. You can't rely on "truth" winning in the end. Court room proceedings aren't debates like you have in highschool: All you have to do is convince an ignorant jury to go with your side. Look at the Koh Samsung debacle. It's very hard to get a wrong decision reversed since Judges don't like looking stupid or making other judge's look stupid. There are some very dirty and entirely legal tactics that lawyers use to bring the juries over to their side. I can't list them here because I would be howled down. This is why it's in your interests to settle with a troll, no matter how crazy their claim. Don't expect the judge to save you: There are some very one-eyed judges out there in patent troll county.
Litigating a patent, whether you are the plaintiff or defendant costs $3M-$5M. Lawyers get paid no matter what. Even if you win, it's very unlikely the other side will be ordered to pay your full costs. You have to treat that money as a write off. You won't see it again. Some lawyers work on contingency for patent trolls, but this makes it worse for the victim because neither the plaintiff or their lawyers need to give a s*** about costs and refuse to settle. If they can fool a stupid jury they can end up owning your business, so why settle for a modest and mutually agreeable fee?
The system is so bad that the smartest thing a software developer can do is take the money and run at the first chance before someone sues you, because you can't write a program these days without infringing a hundred 'obvious' patents. As soon as you get the whiff of money around you, the trolls will come. Expect submarine patents and out right bogus ones too. Writing software is like being an OB-GYN... too risky. Find something safer.
Lawyers are opportunists, and I blame the USPTO and Congress for giving them the opportunity. Instead of looking at stupid patents, they need to go after the root cause.
I love the "old" clicky keyboards. They feel much better on the fingers and the tactile freedback is wonderful. You can still buy them from UNICOMP who bought out the IBM keyboard factory upgraded with USB: http://pckeyboard.com/page/category/UKBD
When I buy a laptop they're all equal EXCEPT FOR THE KEYBOARDS. Some are better than others, but none compare to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_M_keyboard
Know people who type whole novels on their iPhone, but is it really the best way to do it?
Biggest problem I have is apps that want to snoop on my phone state (can get your phone #, see what calls you are making and when) and unnecessary geolocation (so they know where you are to profile you in their marketing database). Android does warn you what apps do, but I'd like to see these categories made clearer so I don't even have to see then when I'm searching.
Next annoyance is apps that have intrusive advertising. Google doesn't warn about this. You find out when you download. Download. Delete. Download. Delete. Maybe half of all apps are like that.
> So even if you win the lawsuit, you might end up losing money in the end.
Try definitely. In the US your legal fees usually aren't reimbursed, so you will be out of pocket $3-5M *EVEN IF YOU WIN*. Kiss that money goodbye. Under UK rules the winner does get their legal fees reimbursed, but lawyers charge a lot more than that amount so you will still be out of pocket for say half that amount.
As soon as someone sues you for patent violation - even if their suit is a sham - you're a few million out of pocket. In theory the judge should throw out sham suits, but judges in patent troll counties are a different breed.
> "The bank says all data was 'deidentified' and it consulted with privacy authorities."
Sure, but what about the actual customers whose data is being exposed? Someone should take nude photos of these bank bureaucrats in the shower, mosaic out their faces and put it in on the web. "Don't worry, we checked with our "privacy authorities.""
Here's the funny thing: Industry develops a standard and the IEEE gets together to approve it, but once they do they own the copyright on the standard and you can only get a copy from them, costing several hundred bucks. Some standards are split up, so instead of one fat book you are buying many small thin ones. Not a problem for big business, but a sizable expense for smaller ones and hardly an 'open' standard we want for voting machines.
The IEEE, just like academic publishers, restricts who papers can be shown too. The IEEE is a professional organization - not a for-profit publisher, but they act just another information monopoly. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100127/0423477913.shtml
Sorry. Not sure how that happened, but it was supposed to go here:
"ATTORNEY-GENERAL Nicola Roxon has authorised the extradition of an ethnic Tamil, wanted by the US on offshore terrorism charges, despite his fears he will be deported to Sri Lanka and punished. Ms Roxon signed the extradition order in February, sparking a legal challenge by the man's lawyers, who insist he has never been a threat to the US or Australia and that the alleged offences are more political than security-related. Documents obtained by The Australian under Freedom of Information laws show the extradition case was considered especially sensitive by Australian bureaucrats... The FOI decision-maker has censored 1 1/2 pages of the preliminary advice to Ms Roxon, fearing the contests would harm international relations." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/foi/roxon-clears-tamils-extradition-to-us/story-fn8r0e18-1226438076806
Slashdot Mirror
The logic of this article seems to be one person has changed their mind about something, therefore everyone else with similar beliefs is also wrong, and valid concerns such as the ones you raise can suddenly be ignored.
Those "old" links are dated Nov 2012. If you have something more recent suggest you offer it, because you don't give any links at all. I can't see a single reference anywhere on the web that GMA 3650 supports anything other than DirectX 9. The links referred to the N2600. You made up the N450 stuff. Even Intel's own web site says it only supports DirectX 9. http://ark.intel.com/products/36331/Intel-Atom-Processor-N270-512K-Cache-1_60-GHz-533-MHz-FSB#infosectiongraphicsspecifications.
Here's a review of a Z2670 tablet which you claim runs DirectX. "One of the limitations of the W510's Intel Graphics Media Accelerator GPU is that it's not DirectX 11 compatible, so our standard 3DMark11 benchmark wouldn't run. You can forget about playing "World of Warcraft," too. Even when effects were set to low, the W510 averaged just 12 fps, and even hung up during our test flights." 'Quite Fast' my ass. http://www.laptopmag.com/acer-iconia-w510.aspx Posted Dec 28.
The spec sheets for Z2760 tablets I googled either says DirectX 9. http://www.tipidpc.com/viewtopic.php?tid=279073 http://www.pinoytechblog.com/archives/acer-iconia-w510-the-windows-8-tablet-netbook-hybrid
Or in the case of Dell doesn't give the version at all.http://www.dell.com/uk/enterprise/p/latitude-10-tablet/fs
No wonder you're posting as AC. Google Moar.
> You can see where I am smugly going here. That is exactly what TFA was all about. In act, it also said:
>> Atom chips will move to an entirely new design later this year that is expected to get them closer to Intel's mainstream processors in performance.
I own quite a few Atom PCs and in terms of performance, I think Atom's are quite okay. They're not big on grunt, but still sufficiently powerful to do anything you throw at it EXCEPT 3D. That's their big weakness. Office, web services, software development, yeah fine. Even video transcoding: slower than a desktop, but it will get there. But 3D? No. 3D is ithe new black so that's a deal breaker for many. A wise man summed it up nicely: "I'd rather have a mediocre CPU and a fast GPU than the other way around."
Here's an Atom-powered Netbook. Does nicely in every category except 3D: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Acer-Aspire-One-D270-26Dbb-Netbook.73534.0.html
Now compare that to a similar Netbook with the AMD chipset: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Asus-Eee-PC-1015B-Netbook.56840.0.html
AMD delivers over twice the performance, and that's my experience: Open up a 3D app on an Atom device and you get three mouldy grey triangles before it crashes. Intel don't take 3D seriously. Never have.
Intel really needs to get its act together: It's Atom processors are a decent low power x86 solution, but as usual Intel has delivered them with a crappy 3D graphics to the point the graphical benchmarks can't even run on them, let alone any recent computer games. For the Atom Cedar Trail release they didn't even do DX10 drivers, and sheepishly back-speced it to the now outdated DX9. ARM tablets can deliver decent 3D, so why can't Intel? Even AMD can provide 3D graphics for low-power PCs. Why can't Intel? And Intel wonders why it's becoming irrelevant to the future of computing!?
No DX10 for you!
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/01/03/intel-thinks-cedar-trail-is-a-dog-reading-between-bullet-points/#.UOY58uRJNxA
Windows must live with DX9. Linux can't do anything at all...
http://tanguy.ortolo.eu/blog/article56/beware-newest-intel-atom
Oh and did I mention it doesn't work on Windows 8.
http://communities.intel.com/message/175674
http://www.eightforums.com/hardware-drivers/12305-intel-gma-3600-3650-windows-8-driver.html
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_8-hardware/windows-8-on-intel-atom-d2700dc-graphics-driver/2a6015d3-af92-453d-b0c2-20cc56b764de
We've reached the point where no one can do anything without violating someone elses patents. At the multinational corporations this has produced a ridiculous deadlock where no one can sell anything. I propose we (i) dismantle the patent system, (ii) throw out any congressman who stands in our way and (iii) finally turn the USPTO staff and patent laywers into soylnet green.
> The star rating has become how people view if a book is a success and it has become inherently corrupt.
The star rating system is riddled with rubbish like "The book arrived on time and was in good condition. Would definitely recommend this seller. 10/10" and often worse "This book was late and the damaged. 0/10".
That is, the Amazon rating system is a rating of the SELLER, and seldom the book! The uselessness of this has been pointed out to Amazon but instead of telling customers to review the book and not the seller (the easy way), they've added a stupid "Is this review useful?" button which doesn't fix the erroneous star ratings. Amazon have an awesome resource, a user-based rating of nearly every book on the planet, and they squandered it out of sheer laziness by their IT staff and management. Crazy they are cracking down on author reviews without fixing this.
Imagine if the Star Wars universe was "updated"* to reflect the latest recording technology. Not only would R2D2 have hi-def, but everyone would be walking around the Star Wars universe twittering and watching movies on their smartphones. If the population of Alderaan was a bunch of smartphone addicts then when the Death Star wipes them out a million souls would text in terror "OMG! WTF!" and rush to update their Facebook status before they were vaporized, but a billion more would cheer the Death Star on.
* Don't worry. George has sold it to the Mouse. He can destroy your child hood memories no more.
> (If you have journal access, or don't mind forking over $40, you can read the original paper.)
You might ask why the journal is charging $40. Usually the journals - run by companies - have nothing to do with writing the original paper, contributing only academic review (possibly by unpaid volunteers) and publishing. They won't print the article unless the author signs a copyright transfer agreement which means they no longer own the copyright, and can't even put the paper on their own website. It's a ripoff, but academic institutions made the mistake of crediting publications by their employees which count towards promotions. The academic publishers in turn charge institutions extortionate rates - many thousands of dollars - to see papers by other academics they didn't pay a cent for. These people are the academic version of the RIAA: Redundant Middle-men ripping off both sides. There are papers written as far back as the 1960s which academic publishing companies still hold copyright over, standing in the way of ongoing research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_transfer_agreement
"Princeton goes open access to stop staff handing all copyright to journals - unless waiver granted " - http://theconversation.edu.au/princeton-goes-open-access-to-stop-staff-handing-all-copyright-to-journals-unless-waiver-granted-3596
"One of disadvantages of this publishing model, is that the published research is only available to those researchers who have a subscription to the journal or can afford to buy the book. Often subscription and book costs are prohibitively expensive. Many libraries, particularly smaller ones, cannot afford these subscriptions." - http://www.unimelb.edu.au/copyright/information/new/research/publishing.html
> I do not, for the life of me, understand why FireFox is so hell-bent on 32-bit versions.
Same here. I've been running Waterfox for some months now on a low-end 64-bit desktop PC. It's very fast, and I've not had any plugin or extension problems. Given what a pig Firefox is for memory (and to be fair Chrome and the other browsers too) if there is one application that should drive 64-bit technology it should be these damned web browsers!
Mod parent up for truth
"Taps" has become a bogus oversensationalized headline, as if there is some great honor fought for by many that some lucky soul is blessed by God to be given the opportunity to perform.
But it's really just a dishonest synonym for "ask": "USAF asks ESPN to compile drone highlight video" or if money has changed hands: "USAF pays ESPN to compile highlight video."
Lets have some truth in language and get rid of these bullshit words.
This is perfect for me. I love sports, so long as I'm the one watching them and not playing them. I hate exercise. I love TV, eating and shopping, but carrying my purchases around the shopping center is hard work. Oh yeah I can use a push trolley, but they don't always go all the way out to the car park. And even if they do, how am I supposed to lift them into the trunk and get them out again? Do I look like Superman? So it's great to see DARPA producing technology with civilian applications, and just in time for Xmas! But I want it smaller, with speed stripes and a spoiler, so back to the drawing board I am afraid. But perhaps these civilian versions can pave the way for a later military version? America will be grateful. signed, Grateful taxpayer.
Lawyers go wherever the money is. The sort of fly-by-night conmen who used to rip people off with bogus real estate deals can now rip millions off companies quite legally by buying a bullshit patent and threatening anyone and everyone. Lawyers love this shit, and that's why these two have set off hand-in-hand to rob and pillage the tech industry.
Apple might design nice looking products, but ethically they are pretty bad. If there was a company like this around when Apple were starting up they would have been buried under lawsuits before they could even get off the ground. That's bad for the tech industry.
> One of the qualifications of a patent is that it is non-obvious to a professional in that industry. That is pretty well ignored when most patents that I see litigated are 100% obvious to people well outside that area. Keyboards on a cell phone for texting. Wow that must have take a room full of geniuses working since Edison to work out that combo.
The law is an ass, especially the Adversarial system of law practiced in the US where lawyers dispute everything, no matter how obvious. They say "In my opinion, my client's patent is most certainly not obvious and my client has a strong case." Rules forbid lawyers from bringing weak cases "without merit", but the lawyer simply insist they believe their case is strong and the judge (also a lawyer) will agree the only way to sort it out is in court, at great expense. You can't rely on "truth" winning in the end. Court room proceedings aren't debates like you have in highschool: All you have to do is convince an ignorant jury to go with your side. Look at the Koh Samsung debacle. It's very hard to get a wrong decision reversed since Judges don't like looking stupid or making other judge's look stupid. There are some very dirty and entirely legal tactics that lawyers use to bring the juries over to their side. I can't list them here because I would be howled down. This is why it's in your interests to settle with a troll, no matter how crazy their claim. Don't expect the judge to save you: There are some very one-eyed judges out there in patent troll county.
Litigating a patent, whether you are the plaintiff or defendant costs $3M-$5M. Lawyers get paid no matter what. Even if you win, it's very unlikely the other side will be ordered to pay your full costs. You have to treat that money as a write off. You won't see it again. Some lawyers work on contingency for patent trolls, but this makes it worse for the victim because neither the plaintiff or their lawyers need to give a s*** about costs and refuse to settle. If they can fool a stupid jury they can end up owning your business, so why settle for a modest and mutually agreeable fee?
The system is so bad that the smartest thing a software developer can do is take the money and run at the first chance before someone sues you, because you can't write a program these days without infringing a hundred 'obvious' patents. As soon as you get the whiff of money around you, the trolls will come. Expect submarine patents and out right bogus ones too. Writing software is like being an OB-GYN... too risky. Find something safer.
Lawyers are opportunists, and I blame the USPTO and Congress for giving them the opportunity. Instead of looking at stupid patents, they need to go after the root cause.
If University of Chicago didn't already have a museum, it does now and one that would attract more visits than any Colbert exhibit.
The Israeli government have discounted earlier reports of Iranian involvement, and are now looking for a Mr. Wile E. Coyote.
I love the "old" clicky keyboards. They feel much better on the fingers and the tactile freedback is wonderful. You can still buy them from UNICOMP who bought out the IBM keyboard factory upgraded with USB: http://pckeyboard.com/page/category/UKBD
You can also pick them up on 2nd hand on eBay from these resellers: http://www.clickykeyboards.com/
When I buy a laptop they're all equal EXCEPT FOR THE KEYBOARDS. Some are better than others, but none compare to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_M_keyboard Know people who type whole novels on their iPhone, but is it really the best way to do it?
Biggest problem I have is apps that want to snoop on my phone state (can get your phone #, see what calls you are making and when) and unnecessary geolocation (so they know where you are to profile you in their marketing database). Android does warn you what apps do, but I'd like to see these categories made clearer so I don't even have to see then when I'm searching.
Next annoyance is apps that have intrusive advertising. Google doesn't warn about this. You find out when you download. Download. Delete. Download. Delete. Maybe half of all apps are like that.
> but still couldn't build a usable tablet experience..."
Or desktop experience, as it turns out.
I am going to patent 'obnoxious patenting' and sue Apple for all its worth. Gonna buy me a shiny new jury foreman too. Oh the world is not enough!
> So even if you win the lawsuit, you might end up losing money in the end.
Try definitely. In the US your legal fees usually aren't reimbursed, so you will be out of pocket $3-5M *EVEN IF YOU WIN*. Kiss that money goodbye. Under UK rules the winner does get their legal fees reimbursed, but lawyers charge a lot more than that amount so you will still be out of pocket for say half that amount.
As soon as someone sues you for patent violation - even if their suit is a sham - you're a few million out of pocket. In theory the judge should throw out sham suits, but judges in patent troll counties are a different breed.
Here's an example where Google ignored the Privacy Commissioner: http://www.news.com.au/technology/google-fails-to-comply-with-privacy-commissioner-order-to-delete-street-view-data/story-e6frfro0-1226492591021
> "The bank says all data was 'deidentified' and it consulted with privacy authorities."
Sure, but what about the actual customers whose data is being exposed? Someone should take nude photos of these bank bureaucrats in the shower, mosaic out their faces and put it in on the web. "Don't worry, we checked with our "privacy authorities.""
You have to wonder who these "privacy authorities" are. The Federal Privacy Commissioner is weak and except for hidden microphones, Australia has weak privacy laws: The worst penalty the Privacy Commissioner can hand out is a letter to an offending company saying "please don't do that." There is no fine or penalty so there is no deterrent.
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/youre-being-more-closely-watched-20120916-260ko.html
http://www.privacy.org.au/Resources/POA.html
Here's the funny thing: Industry develops a standard and the IEEE gets together to approve it, but once they do they own the copyright on the standard and you can only get a copy from them, costing several hundred bucks. Some standards are split up, so instead of one fat book you are buying many small thin ones. Not a problem for big business, but a sizable expense for smaller ones and hardly an 'open' standard we want for voting machines.
Examples: http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/browse?publisher_id=95&subgroup_id=36802
A small number are free, though not many. http://standards.ieee.org/about/get/index.html
The IEEE, just like academic publishers, restricts who papers can be shown too. The IEEE is a professional organization - not a for-profit publisher, but they act just another information monopoly.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100127/0423477913.shtml
> The list has been in the possession of the Greek government since 2010
Sounds to me more like the people of Greece should be arresting the Greek government.
Sorry. Not sure how that happened, but it was supposed to go here:
... The FOI decision-maker has censored 1 1/2 pages of the preliminary advice to Ms Roxon, fearing the contests would harm international relations."
"ATTORNEY-GENERAL Nicola Roxon has authorised the extradition of an ethnic Tamil, wanted by the US on offshore terrorism charges, despite his fears he will be deported to Sri Lanka and punished. Ms Roxon signed the extradition order in February, sparking a legal challenge by the man's lawyers, who insist he has never been a threat to the US or Australia and that the alleged offences are more political than security-related. Documents obtained by The Australian under Freedom of Information laws show the extradition case was considered especially sensitive by Australian bureaucrats
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/foi/roxon-clears-tamils-extradition-to-us/story-fn8r0e18-1226438076806