Ignoring all the florian-spew and articles based on it, it seems an expert report was accidentally insufficiently redacted, and Samsung has not been fast enough in their investigation of where all the information went, so the magistrate judge is setting a deadline and ordering some depositions. Yawn.
As far as I can tell, they *immediately* detect any new phone; you can even look on their website and they will show you what phone you last used.
The whole data-plan thing is nuts. (The whole contract-subsidized phones thing is nuts too, but that's a different issue.) There's no reason you can't have a smartphone and just use its data features via WiFi if you want. That said, I thought AT&T was pretty consistent about this and am surprised to hear reports here of people getting out of the data plan. Maybe that was actually with "feature phones", not "smart phones"?
With respect to dumb phones, AT&T sells them; no need to get a used one. Yes, the selection is kind of limited, and they charge more if you wish to decline a new 2-year contract, but not all that much more (depending on the phone). I've even (several times) gone into an AT&T store and they've let me buy a very cheap Go Phone to replace a lost phone, even when I was eligible for a new subsidized phone but explicitly said I didn't want another 2-year agreement. (I think in either of those cases they are at least supposed to charge you $5 for a new sim, but they haven't actually done so.)
"called in"? On what terms do you think the debt is?
The interest on the debt is basically funding the buying up of the US by foreign countries, a very bad thing, but not something they want to "call in".
Err, no, that isn't obvious. Or at least it is in direct conflict with the request that the data be "mirrored", which implies to me a copy which also distibutes to the public.
I'd like to hear more from cellurl to resolve the conflict I see in the request.
You want to "Protect...Data", "not give up the ship", "follow...our charter of providing safety". But what is it that you don't what mirrors to do with the data? Less verbiage, more clarity, please.
This is getting old, the every couple days another story splashing the Evil Google name in the headlines with hardly any change from the previous round. There will be progress in the MS-EU-Google tussle over time but basically there's nothing to say until it's over and done with. And by then some of the wild accusations of exposure will magically have faded to something actually reasonable.
I've also had a problem by objecting to a false DMCA complaint. Pair said I was the only one who objected rather than just remove the wrongly perceived complaint. They told me if there's another complaint that they will close my account.
Could you say that again in a way that makes sense? Who complained and to whom? Who were the others of which you were the only objector? What do you mean by "wrongly perceived"?
Yes. "Of course, pirated versions won't contain these 20-second notices; however, an ICE spokesman says the intent isn't to deter piracy but to educate the public." makes no sense - does the fine article author not know what "however" means? It would have needed to be "Of course, pirated versions won't contain these 20-second notices; however, an ICE spokesman says the intent isn't to encourage piracy but to educate the public."
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't he be too busy to say anything of the kind?
To be specific, Samsung's external lawyers; actual Samsung employee lawyers would not (or at any rate should not) have had access.
Ignoring all the florian-spew and articles based on it, it seems an expert report was accidentally insufficiently redacted, and Samsung has not been fast enough in their investigation of where all the information went, so the magistrate judge is setting a deadline and ordering some depositions. Yawn.
For the worried, the link is quite SFW.
"What does it run?"
Since you are just spooling, that should be more than adequate.
(Not sure how someone else calculated 432GB/day, and I am horrified by the suggestion to overnight mail hard drives - way too expensive.)
As far as I can tell, they *immediately* detect any new phone; you can even look on their website and they will show you what phone you last used.
The whole data-plan thing is nuts. (The whole contract-subsidized phones thing is nuts too, but that's a different issue.) There's no reason you can't have a smartphone and just use its data features via WiFi if you want. That said, I thought AT&T was pretty consistent about this and am surprised to hear reports here of people getting out of the data plan. Maybe that was actually with "feature phones", not "smart phones"?
With respect to dumb phones, AT&T sells them; no need to get a used one. Yes, the selection is kind of limited, and they charge more if you wish to decline a new 2-year contract, but not all that much more (depending on the phone). I've even (several times) gone into an AT&T store and they've let me buy a very cheap Go Phone to replace a lost phone, even when I was eligible for a new subsidized phone but explicitly said I didn't want another 2-year agreement. (I think in either of those cases they are at least supposed to charge you $5 for a new sim, but they haven't actually done so.)
Sorry, that should be: very seriously
Oh, great. I even tested it, but FF "corrected" it for me. Why on Earth would it ever be supposed to do that on a *link*?
The Europeans are taking fusion very seriously and making nice progress.
"called in"? On what terms do you think the debt is?
The interest on the debt is basically funding the buying up of the US by foreign countries, a very bad thing, but not something they want to "call in".
Good thing we got the collapse out of the way first, then?
Remember the Alamo
iconic glasses, perhaps?
Why not 100% vote by mail (in effect, everyone an absentee voter)?
It works here, and I have yet to hear a cogent argument against it.
Err, no, that isn't obvious. Or at least it is in direct conflict with the request that the data be "mirrored", which implies to me a copy which also distibutes to the public.
I'd like to hear more from cellurl to resolve the conflict I see in the request.
You want to "Protect...Data", "not give up the ship", "follow...our charter of providing safety". But what is it that you don't what mirrors to do with the data? Less verbiage, more clarity, please.
and not a _nomap in the lot?
This is getting old, the every couple days another story splashing the Evil Google name in the headlines with hardly any change from the previous round. There will be progress in the MS-EU-Google tussle over time but basically there's nothing to say until it's over and done with. And by then some of the wild accusations of exposure will magically have faded to something actually reasonable.
Only if you want to. I think the lecture proper is only 45 minutes.
in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2VHf5vpBy8
They obviously could use some help.
I got OS/2 running just fine.
I've also had a problem by objecting to a false DMCA complaint. Pair said I was the only one who objected rather than just remove the wrongly perceived complaint. They told me if there's another complaint that they will close my account.
Could you say that again in a way that makes sense? Who complained and to whom? Who were the others of which you were the only objector? What do you mean by "wrongly perceived"?
Yes. "Of course, pirated versions won't contain these 20-second notices; however, an ICE spokesman says the intent isn't to deter piracy but to educate the public." makes no sense - does the fine article author not know what "however" means? It would have needed to be "Of course, pirated versions won't contain these 20-second notices; however, an ICE spokesman says the intent isn't to encourage piracy but to educate the public."