That was Apollo 8 in December 1968. It was not only the first manned flight to pass behind the Moon (and endure loss-of-signal as a result) but was also the first manned flight to orbit.
No lander was carried -- just a mass slug that stood in for the LM so that the Saturn 5 would behave normally as it would during later missions. I don't know without checking whether or not the crew practiced approaching the spent third stage -- that task may very well have been left to the crew of Apollo 9 to test (first manned LM test, took place in Earth orbit; that's why some photos of "moon shots" show the LM with the Earth behind it or elsewhere in the frame).
Uhm, it's the name of the company. So do I have to write "Coca-Cola, which produces sodas and other types of beverages" or "Honda, maker of cars, motorcycles, marine engines and other large industrial products" or "Apple, producer of computers, music players, and online music distributor"? It's not the job of a writer to baby readers by telling them every little bit of extraneous information. The editor already provided some context by reminding us that NTP was mentioned in the past in another story and links to it, and the original submitter also provided some background.
You may recall NTP from the just-finished Blackberry case. Good to know they're staying busy.
You mean, as in filing baseless lawsuits over patents that have been rejected by the USPTO? You're glad that blatant extortion is going on? It seems to me like fertile grounds for a countersuit on extortion grounds if nothing else
Yeah, if a geek is available to set it up (me) it can be made to work for her. She would not go onto eBay herself to buy it, though, and the general public won't do that even if they know that it can be done in the first place. That would be the barrier to widespread use of the phone here.
Unless, of course, Motorola DOES come up with a way to officially distribute it here.
I don't. She does. It depends on the provider and plan. (I'm hearing-impaired. Being charged per message would suck). It is starting to take off, though -- I see more contests that require you to text a code to a number, and the local baseball stadium (Busch, St. Louis, MO) lets you send a message to a certain number to enter contests, or to have a short message printed on the big marquee board before the game starts).
I hope that you'll be able to get it. A lot of countries have large English-speaking populations so you will likely be in luck although not certainly. Still, though, as I replied in another reply to my comment, it really needs to be sold through official channels for a lot of people to be willing to buy one.
I would think about buying Mom one if it does become possible, though, because she doesn't want a lot of features, either, and does not have a triband phone but does go to Greece sometimes to visit family there, and her current phone won't work there (which was interesting to try to explain).
Not everyone wants to do that. A lot of people want to just be able to walk into a store and buy a phone that has a warranty and official support. Not everyone is comfortable with buying off ebay in general also. People who are on Slashdot aren't typical of the general population. Don't put yourself in the place of a Slashdot reader. Put yourself in the place of the vast majority of the cellphone-using morons who blab on the phone while driving and almost get me killed because they don't bother to pay attention.
And yet, by jeering at this guy for taking the question seriously, you point out that there really are people who don't understand why a simple phone is a good thing -- and thus that's a lot of why no simple phone exists (much) in the US market. Not enough people care, or they just say "I just won't use that stuff" and by being willing to pay extra for stuff they'll never use, they help to screw over the people who will not pay (one of them posted in the thread already, at least).
If you read the very last paragraph in the article, it states that the phone isn't going to be available in the US unless someone will carry it (and it doesn't have a way for Verizon et al to nickel and dime you to death with photos, ringtones etc, so good luck getting them to do it) or it's sold in drugstores alongside no-name brands, and I wouldn't be surprised if Motorola makes up some BS excuse about how it's beneath Moto to sell that way.
So for now, those who want just a simple phone (like my mom) are out of luck. Even text messaging and other bells and whistles go unused on her phone.
On the upside, she got the phone for free with her plan and just doesn't use the features she doesn't want, but she's continually asking me if she gets charged for text messages (not unless it's someone other than T-Mobile who sends them and nobody sends her anything, so I don't see why she worries).
It does not matter if a federal judge disagrees. This has been settled decades ago by the supreme court.
You mean, like how the right to abortion was decided decades ago by the supreme court and now there's all sorts of fussing that the law needs to be changed?
I'm hearing-impaired and don't have the ability to detect sound quality differences, and I can't hear stereo or surround sound, either, so why not be mindful of the fact that not everyone cares and that many of us who don't care have perfectly good reasons to not care?
(and before you accuse me of destroying my ears with loud rock music, I didn't. I was born this way thanks to a prenatal case of German measles (rubella), so I didn't have a choice in the matter.
Too bad dumbass #2 is incapable of re-creating someone else's perfectly logical expectation that something that is ephemeral can be re-created as proof certainly exists that the download was paid for.
I think the first responder has it right... you're one of the shills that think Apple can do no wrong. I love their products and software as much as a lot of other people do, but unlike many other people, I can say "they screwed up".
However realize when you buy an Ipod, you're agreeing to use it the way Apple says you can. That means no changing it so it suddenly plays videos if it didn't before.
Buh? No. When you buy something, it is yours to use as you wish. You can't use it to break the law, because it is the act in question that is illegal (you can't use a gun to kill someone, but you can modify it however you want once you have paid for it and left the shop with the receipt proving that you have paid -- assuming you don't make modifications that are illegal by themselves, such as full-auto conversions -- by adding laser sights, different magazines, an ambidextrous safety (I'm lefthanded, I'd need to do this) and so on.
You don't agree to anything without a signed contract existing, and opening a box that is not sealed by a "if you break this seal, you agree to..." sticker does not mean that the maker of the device in question can control what you do with it. The law goes so far as to say that the maker cannot demand royalties from you if you then sell the item (the doctrine of first sale).
In other words, the original manufacturer loses control as soon as the device changes hands.
it turns out that people just don't care enough to deprive themselves of entertainment.
Heaven forbid anyone want to enjoy life and think of something outside of their jobs or stupid (as most is) family/friends infighting/drama. Wow, people want to enjoy themselves. Film at eleven!
Although YouTube is legally obligated to remove infringing material when notified, some copyright holders have expressed irritation at the notion that they need to police YouTube themselves.
Well, that's funny. That's what the law says, and who petitioned for that law? Yes, that's right. It was the MPAA and the RIAA!
Now they're complaining about the bed they made themselves.
Kind of funny you think someone is overreacting over the loss of privacy and actually DOING something about it the day after Slashdot runs an article over hypocritical "say one thing, do another" actions?
If you're actually serious, you're part of the problem -- Slashdot is violently pro-privacy, and yet then you get gems like this one that poke fun at people who actually act to do something about it.
Apple does not have a trademark on the word "Pod". Their going after anyone who has "pod" in the name of a product is unwarranted and unfair. A "pod" has long been a term for a container that contains something else -- dictionary.com includes "protective container" as a definition.
Yet Apple went after (and forced a name change of) a product that was just a laptop slipcase that protected the enclosed laptop from damage -- even though the name was just the dictionary definition of the item's function!
Doesn't really matter. This is an example of how language changes over time. A word with one meaning this decade can have an entirely different one in the next, and once the new meaning is as firmly entrenched as "spam = junk email" is, there's no going back. I don't know what the point is of all the moaning about this (on Hormel's part)... if they wanted to complain they should have done it a long, long time ago before the meaning change became entrenched.
Hormel, you're too late. About a decade too late. Stop trying to herd cats and spend your money on something that's actually achievable -- you certainly are not going to get anywhere here. The increasing backlash of corporatization of everything certainly won't help you either.
I should clarify that I was grumbling about the fact that the courts can find and prosecute a case that most of us don't care about, but they can't find and prosecute offenders that we do care about. Not on the type of case but on the basis of their excuses of "we can't find spammers" being rather hollow. There's a money trail to follow. They just don't bother.
As a security-conscious programmer with a lot of corporate development history, I support Vista's blocking of non-signed drivers 100%.
Not everyone wants to run their hardware in a corporate environment. Lots of hobbyists, geeks, people who make stuff by hand and sell to a tiny market of fellow enthusiasts and make little to no money on the sale but just do it for the fun and cred have a perfectly legit reason to not want to have to deal with this. And maybe some of the people who buy the hardware can't run XP for whatever reason -- maybe it's 3 years from now and they have some vital app on their system that won't run in XP and they can't or won't set up dual boot.
But then I guess you don't care what happens to those people. Because if it's not big, or government, or corporate, your attitude seems to be "throw it away".
There are perfectly good reasons to want to run unsigned drivers. Why can't a domain policy be set that optionally disallows unsigned drivers, but the default allow them? That would make the corporate types happy and the hacker types happy.
But nooo, Microsoft just HAS to make the 64-bit version totally unable to handle unsigned drivers -- just when 64-bit CPUs are popping up all over the place in home systems.
Under CAN-SPAM, spamming can be a criminal offense.
And you can't sue as a private citizen. You have to be an ISP or the government.
From the Wikipedia article:
"The legislation does not allow e-mail recipients to sue spammers or class-action lawsuits, but allows enforcement by the FTC, State Attorneys General, Internet service providers, and other federal agencies for special categories of spammers (such as banks). An individual could still sue as an ISP if (s)he ran a mail server, but this would likely be cost-prohibitive."
Slashdot Mirror
And if someone is punching you in the face and choking you and causing you to suffocate, you're supposed to just lie there and let someone murder you?
Perhaps you aren't fully considering just how far people will go to defend themselves against death?
That was Apollo 8 in December 1968. It was not only the first manned flight to pass behind the Moon (and endure loss-of-signal as a result) but was also the first manned flight to orbit.
No lander was carried -- just a mass slug that stood in for the LM so that the Saturn 5 would behave normally as it would during later missions. I don't know without checking whether or not the crew practiced approaching the spent third stage -- that task may very well have been left to the crew of Apollo 9 to test (first manned LM test, took place in Earth orbit; that's why some photos of "moon shots" show the LM with the Earth behind it or elsewhere in the frame).
Uhm, it's the name of the company. So do I have to write "Coca-Cola, which produces sodas and other types of beverages" or "Honda, maker of cars, motorcycles, marine engines and other large industrial products" or "Apple, producer of computers, music players, and online music distributor"? It's not the job of a writer to baby readers by telling them every little bit of extraneous information. The editor already provided some context by reminding us that NTP was mentioned in the past in another story and links to it, and the original submitter also provided some background.
Where exactly is the lack of information?
"My name is Sue! How do you do? Now you gonna die!" Yeah, that's what I told 'em.
You may recall NTP from the just-finished Blackberry case. Good to know they're staying busy.
You mean, as in filing baseless lawsuits over patents that have been rejected by the USPTO? You're glad that blatant extortion is going on? It seems to me like fertile grounds for a countersuit on extortion grounds if nothing else
Yeah, if a geek is available to set it up (me) it can be made to work for her. She would not go onto eBay herself to buy it, though, and the general public won't do that even if they know that it can be done in the first place. That would be the barrier to widespread use of the phone here.
Unless, of course, Motorola DOES come up with a way to officially distribute it here.
I don't. She does. It depends on the provider and plan. (I'm hearing-impaired. Being charged per message would suck). It is starting to take off, though -- I see more contests that require you to text a code to a number, and the local baseball stadium (Busch, St. Louis, MO) lets you send a message to a certain number to enter contests, or to have a short message printed on the big marquee board before the game starts).
I hope that you'll be able to get it. A lot of countries have large English-speaking populations so you will likely be in luck although not certainly. Still, though, as I replied in another reply to my comment, it really needs to be sold through official channels for a lot of people to be willing to buy one.
I would think about buying Mom one if it does become possible, though, because she doesn't want a lot of features, either, and does not have a triband phone but does go to Greece sometimes to visit family there, and her current phone won't work there (which was interesting to try to explain).
Not everyone wants to do that. A lot of people want to just be able to walk into a store and buy a phone that has a warranty and official support. Not everyone is comfortable with buying off ebay in general also. People who are on Slashdot aren't typical of the general population. Don't put yourself in the place of a Slashdot reader. Put yourself in the place of the vast majority of the cellphone-using morons who blab on the phone while driving and almost get me killed because they don't bother to pay attention.
And yet, by jeering at this guy for taking the question seriously, you point out that there really are people who don't understand why a simple phone is a good thing -- and thus that's a lot of why no simple phone exists (much) in the US market. Not enough people care, or they just say "I just won't use that stuff" and by being willing to pay extra for stuff they'll never use, they help to screw over the people who will not pay (one of them posted in the thread already, at least).
If you read the very last paragraph in the article, it states that the phone isn't going to be available in the US unless someone will carry it (and it doesn't have a way for Verizon et al to nickel and dime you to death with photos, ringtones etc, so good luck getting them to do it) or it's sold in drugstores alongside no-name brands, and I wouldn't be surprised if Motorola makes up some BS excuse about how it's beneath Moto to sell that way.
So for now, those who want just a simple phone (like my mom) are out of luck. Even text messaging and other bells and whistles go unused on her phone.
On the upside, she got the phone for free with her plan and just doesn't use the features she doesn't want, but she's continually asking me if she gets charged for text messages (not unless it's someone other than T-Mobile who sends them and nobody sends her anything, so I don't see why she worries).
It does not matter if a federal judge disagrees. This has been settled decades ago by the supreme court.
You mean, like how the right to abortion was decided decades ago by the supreme court and now there's all sorts of fussing that the law needs to be changed?
I'm not an iTMS customer, but that said...
;p
I'm hearing-impaired and don't have the ability to detect sound quality differences, and I can't hear stereo or surround sound, either, so why not be mindful of the fact that not everyone cares and that many of us who don't care have perfectly good reasons to not care?
(and before you accuse me of destroying my ears with loud rock music, I didn't. I was born this way thanks to a prenatal case of German measles (rubella), so I didn't have a choice in the matter.
"You insensitive clod!" as Slashdot puts it.
Too bad dumbass #2 is incapable of re-creating someone else's perfectly logical expectation that something that is ephemeral can be re-created as proof certainly exists that the download was paid for.
I think the first responder has it right... you're one of the shills that think Apple can do no wrong. I love their products and software as much as a lot of other people do, but unlike many other people, I can say "they screwed up".
However realize when you buy an Ipod, you're agreeing to use it the way Apple says you can. That means no changing it so it suddenly plays videos if it didn't before.
Buh? No. When you buy something, it is yours to use as you wish. You can't use it to break the law, because it is the act in question that is illegal (you can't use a gun to kill someone, but you can modify it however you want once you have paid for it and left the shop with the receipt proving that you have paid -- assuming you don't make modifications that are illegal by themselves, such as full-auto conversions -- by adding laser sights, different magazines, an ambidextrous safety (I'm lefthanded, I'd need to do this) and so on.
You don't agree to anything without a signed contract existing, and opening a box that is not sealed by a "if you break this seal, you agree to..." sticker does not mean that the maker of the device in question can control what you do with it. The law goes so far as to say that the maker cannot demand royalties from you if you then sell the item (the doctrine of first sale).
In other words, the original manufacturer loses control as soon as the device changes hands.
it turns out that people just don't care enough to deprive themselves of entertainment.
Heaven forbid anyone want to enjoy life and think of something outside of their jobs or stupid (as most is) family/friends infighting/drama. Wow, people want to enjoy themselves. Film at eleven!
Although YouTube is legally obligated to remove infringing material when notified, some copyright holders have expressed irritation at the notion that they need to police YouTube themselves.
Well, that's funny. That's what the law says, and who petitioned for that law? Yes, that's right. It was the MPAA and the RIAA!
Now they're complaining about the bed they made themselves.
Boo hoo. Cry me a fucking river.
I sure hope you're joking.
Kind of funny you think someone is overreacting over the loss of privacy and actually DOING something about it the day after Slashdot runs an article over hypocritical "say one thing, do another" actions?
Slashdot | Who Cares If Privacy Is Slipping Away?
If you're actually serious, you're part of the problem -- Slashdot is violently pro-privacy, and yet then you get gems like this one that poke fun at people who actually act to do something about it.
Nice.
"TIVO's great but I wish I could give you a copy to watch. It was great." we get from TIVO owners.
You can buy TiVos with built-in DVD recorders. Problem solved.
Apple does not have a trademark on the word "Pod". Their going after anyone who has "pod" in the name of a product is unwarranted and unfair. A "pod" has long been a term for a container that contains something else -- dictionary.com includes "protective container" as a definition.
Yet Apple went after (and forced a name change of) a product that was just a laptop slipcase that protected the enclosed laptop from damage -- even though the name was just the dictionary definition of the item's function!
Doesn't really matter. This is an example of how language changes over time. A word with one meaning this decade can have an entirely different one in the next, and once the new meaning is as firmly entrenched as "spam = junk email" is, there's no going back. I don't know what the point is of all the moaning about this (on Hormel's part)... if they wanted to complain they should have done it a long, long time ago before the meaning change became entrenched.
Hormel, you're too late. About a decade too late. Stop trying to herd cats and spend your money on something that's actually achievable -- you certainly are not going to get anywhere here. The increasing backlash of corporatization of everything certainly won't help you either.
I should clarify that I was grumbling about the fact that the courts can find and prosecute a case that most of us don't care about, but they can't find and prosecute offenders that we do care about. Not on the type of case but on the basis of their excuses of "we can't find spammers" being rather hollow. There's a money trail to follow. They just don't bother.
As a security-conscious programmer with a lot of corporate development history, I support Vista's blocking of non-signed drivers 100%.
Not everyone wants to run their hardware in a corporate environment. Lots of hobbyists, geeks, people who make stuff by hand and sell to a tiny market of fellow enthusiasts and make little to no money on the sale but just do it for the fun and cred have a perfectly legit reason to not want to have to deal with this. And maybe some of the people who buy the hardware can't run XP for whatever reason -- maybe it's 3 years from now and they have some vital app on their system that won't run in XP and they can't or won't set up dual boot.
But then I guess you don't care what happens to those people. Because if it's not big, or government, or corporate, your attitude seems to be "throw it away".
There are perfectly good reasons to want to run unsigned drivers. Why can't a domain policy be set that optionally disallows unsigned drivers, but the default allow them? That would make the corporate types happy and the hacker types happy.
But nooo, Microsoft just HAS to make the 64-bit version totally unable to handle unsigned drivers -- just when 64-bit CPUs are popping up all over the place in home systems.
Good job.
Not.
Under CAN-SPAM, spamming can be a criminal offense.
And you can't sue as a private citizen. You have to be an ISP or the government.
From the Wikipedia article:
"The legislation does not allow e-mail recipients to sue spammers or class-action lawsuits, but allows enforcement by the FTC, State Attorneys General, Internet service providers, and other federal agencies for special categories of spammers (such as banks). An individual could still sue as an ISP if (s)he ran a mail server, but this would likely be cost-prohibitive."
So no, I can't file a lawsuit.
Great news... if you're an AOL customer, and if you actually stop getting spam due to this.
Let's see. Nope, and nope.
I know convictions pop up from time to time but I'm not seeing any benefit. Courts? Hello? I'm still waiting.