Oh, ffs, are you telling me that a government based on lobbying is your fine example that armed civilians work at stopping it?! You're either delusional or ignorant or just trolling me, but I honestly think you're the prime example of people that should get weeded out when handing out the guns.
I repeat this, since you don't seem to understand what a democracy is:
Politicians should fear the VOTE of the people, not the guns they have. A democratically elected government should never be deposed simply because you don't agree with their actions. There are other ways to show you're unhappy, for instance, not electing their party in your state or simply protesting.
Guns are in no way or form a requirement for a democratic country to exist. That is a fact, and the majority of the democratic countries in the world are proof of that. Some also came from civil wars and still don't seem to think it is ok to allow a widespread use of guns.
You can't ban all guns because there are already too many weapons out there. You can ban some high caliber / effectiveness weapons and ammo in order to flesh out the weapons as the ammo dries up and they break down. But that'll take a 20 years or so to do, it has to start now to get results in the long run. As it is now, where you can buy a gun over the counter on any specialty store, it can't be.
The statistics I showed were for 90% of the american people owning a car, not "there are x cars". If you read it again you'll notice I actually said the total number of cars was 250M+.
There are a lot of firearms, true, but if only 1/4 owns a gun and still the number of deaths is almost the same as the cars you can't say it is about the same risk, like you were implying. The ratio of deaths per firearm used is way higher (as I've already proven).
Bombs are a whole other ball game. One thing does not relate to the other. I say we should regulate guns and that has nothing to do with what my neighbour internet searches are.
Proof? Some countries require you to have a hunting perming that includes gun training, an exam and registration. It's as easy as that.
When guns are as widespread as they are in the US it is reasonable to hold a gun for protection. I just don't think highly efficient automatic guns should ever be considered for that. I have nothing against using guns as a hunting implement, and I consider that a reasonable use for it. I don't see your point, really.
Results: 38% of households and 26% of individuals reported owning at least one firearm. This corresponds to 42 million US households with firearms, and 57 million adult gun owners. 64% of gun owners or 16% of American adults reported owning at least one handgun. Long guns represent 60% of the privately held gun stock. Almost half (48%) of all individual gun owners reported owning 4 firearms. Men more often reported firearm ownership, with 45% stating that they personally owned at least one firearm, compared with 11% for women.
That's 26%, of the population versus 90% for cars. *sigh*. Obviously that means that most gun owners have 4+ guns, hence, 1 per each american.
Straw sales and second hand sales are EXACTLY where the stolen guns end up. I just said that guns shouldn't be forbidden, just regulated. There would be a black market for those guns, same way there already is one for some of the forbidden ones, but that's not the same as over the counter extremely efficient killing machines. And don't forget that unlike drugs or alcohol when it was forbidden, guns wouldn't be outlawed. You could still own a gun, just maybe have some impositions on how you can legally get your hands on them. It's like saying you're going to ban Absinthe (oh, wait, it is already) and then saying there will be a huge black market for it (there isn't - because you can still buy normal alcohol).
You can choose to examine anything you want from a social standpoint, but GUNS do not relate to FOOD (or transportation, for that matter). The social benefit of guns is highly debatable and you were not comparing the benefits or the usage, just the consequence of extremely irresponsible use and defending that guns are acceptable because other things when badly used cause death too. This, is a fallacy, I don't care how you spin it (as you did). Using your reasoning you can make a case for pretty much anything, for example, killing of wildlife due to pollution and justifying it with an aviary that kills more animals than you. It's ridiculous.
As for your last point, OH MY GOD. Are you completely oblivious about what happens around you? European democracies young?! Greece (where it originated) Iceland (since the 900's, the US was not even in the equation), England and Scotland (1200's) are, in your opinion, young democracies? In most of these countries politicians fear the VOTE of the people, not their guns. And that's where your whole argument is wrong. If your current government starts to go the wrong way you should VOTE against it. The majority will win, and your guns don't give you the right to go against that majority. That's a democracy.
Then comes the Arab revolution. Those were dictatorships, not democracies. And almost everywhere but Libya it happened due to protests and pressure, not war or guns.
Democracy or dictatorships don't relate to guns. And in revolution guns will almost always result in a civil war (that's the worse kind - just look at some African countries). There are a lot of arguments that can be made for guns, but never revolution, i think.
And lastly, the constitution. Some guns are already outlawed. Why can't some more be too? I don't see why you'd need to amend the constitution.
If a gun allows you to be that efficient, it should be regulated. Be it.22 or.50. Prove you have a need for it before you get one. Or two, in that case.
Focus on University killings ALONE. And it's more like 50 years, not 100. So, only counting universities there were 19. There were schools, malls, banks and I think I recall a TV station once.
In Europe you had full blown riots in greece, france and london where the total number of deaths is less than the Virginia school massacre alone. The police used rubber bullets in england because they knew that if there was a gun, they were few and far between and it was enough.
These incidents could have have been avoided (or minimized) with proper gun control:
And those were all in the last 10-12 years with a high death count. I actually linked The Virginia massacre by mistake, I wanted to link the Columbine incident and lost myself in the copy past. But my point still stands. A mentally hill person was able to buy two guns strong enough to kill 33 people over the counter (I think there was a few days waiting period only)
There is a reason the united states have an isolated lead on articles like these ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killing ). And when in some states you have to pass through less hoops getting a gun than getting into a bar, something is wrong.
I'll say it again, you due to sheer amount of guns already out there, you can't ban them. But you can start controlling them better. For example, if gun enthusiasts really want to use high powered rifles, let them, but in a gun range with proper supervision. It's already done with cars (some cars are only allowed on circuits and the brand will fly it there for you if you ever want to drive). In my mind I can see no need for anyone to own more than a glock 19 for self defense, even if others might be better for it.
Ohh, the semantics, semi-automatic / automatic - Same thing and no real use to anyone that wants "self defence" unless you're fighting a horde of zombies or something.
And please, it's not the number of deaths, it's the number of potential deaths if a depressed teenager decides to go on a rampage. The fact that almost everyone can get a stupidly efficient killing machine is extremely dangerous.
In this century there are at least 19 confirmed university shootings alone in the US, nevemind all the other places. I'm not talking about the guns themselves, but someone wanting to do some real damage WILL do real damage. With automatic or semi-automatic (forgive me for the semantic hicup) weapons it'll be worse.
When I said a pistol for self defense, I was thinking about something you can carry. If you're talking homes, yes, a shotgun might be better. As I said, it should be regulated and real need should be invoked. You don't need 30 weapons in your home in order to feel safe.
And again, saying that there are more deaths due to handguns so it is ok to own ak's or M1's is a fallacy. I'm talking about sheer destructive power if someone were to flip out and start shooting without thinking of consequences, not biased statistics. Obviously that if you are in the business of killing, you want to conceal your gun. But you can also use a knife, a wire, a rock, a rope, your hands, a baseball bat or any other thing that can be easily carried without attracting attention. But things like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre should not happen. Ever. A semi automatic (again, sorry for the semantics) weapon should not be available over the counter for anyone anywhere without heavy regulation.
Obviously now that the cat is out of the box, it's kind of hard to get it inside again. Those guns are already out there... But if you start regulating now, with specific rules for buying new guns and ammunition, it would dry out eventually (in 50 or 60 years). But with no regulation at all every few years something like those incidents will happen again.
Your numbers are wrong. There might be a lot of guns, but the number of people with guns is around 60 million ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art29.shtml ) that end up owning multiple guns. From those, I'd imagine half of those (or maybe less) uses it actively every year for something ( as some of you pointed out, it's a self defense thing ). So:
31224 / 60M = 0.0005204 ratio (if everyone used it), but I'd say it is more like 31224/30M = 0.0010408. I'd also like to point out that they aren't used every single day multiple times a day.
In 2008 there were 255,917,664 registered passenger vehicles in the US according to the census. I'm not going to say everyone has exactly 1, but according to this ( http://answers.ask.com/Consumer_Electronics/Other/what_percent_of_americans_own_cars ) almost 90% of americans own a car. Lets assume that only 80% actively use it for something. That brings the total of 204734131 cars that get used every year (hell, I'd say every day, but it'd ruin any statistical comparison). So:
41059/204734131 = 0.000200547 ratio. So that is even less than half the ratio if everyone used a gun every day and almost 5 times less with the adjusted statistics.
And now, about your first point. Where do you think those black market guns come from? I won't say the majority, but some are stolen guns that end up getting sold in the black market. You'll be hard pressed to find a gun (and most likely would get arrested first) in any countries that regulate guns and don't have armed civilians.
About the fallacy, yes, it is. If you want to defend guns you use the argument "10000 robberies were avoided due to guns" not "these other things have bad numbers so it is acceptable to have bad gun numbers". It is not. An argument to be valid has to stand on its own, not hidden behind other social calamities. If death's is a valid point of comparison, do the same argument with people dying of hunger and you'll see how ridiculous it sounds.
And this: "other arguments that point out the fact that an armed populace is critical to a successful democracy". OH MY GOD. Are you this oblivious? Most (I'd say all, but not sure) European democracies regulate guns and, excuse me, are in no way unsuccessful. Where the hell are you getting these ideas from?
My whole point is that you can't say "these other death numbers are bad, so it is ok to have this many deaths due to guns".
It is already too late for the US due to the sheer number of weapons in existence, that should have been heavily regulated from the start. I don't think it is wrong to own a weapon if you prove your need for it, for example: A handgun for self-defense, a rifle if you hunt, etc.
I cannot understand how can AK 47's and MA41s or any automatic high caliber weapon can ever be allowed to exist in the hands of civilians. If one of those ever gets stolen (and it happens) it's another weapon in the hands of the wrong people that will contribute for the 12k homicides/year the US has.
But I was just pointing out that justifying guns with deaths by food is a huge fallacy.
I wouldn't say weapons didn't need to be created, they just had to be outlawed and heavily regulated like in the majority of countries. For the US it is already too late to do that due to the sheer number of weapons in existence. But remember that those "unlawful" weapons might as well be the weapon that got stolen when they robbed your house.
My whole point is that the number of deaths via cars have nothing to do with the number of deaths via guns. Quite sure that if you do the math with
number of deaths / number of guns used VS number of deaths / number of cars used
you'd have quite a different picture.
Either the whole point is moot. You can't try to justify the use of weapons as reasonable with numbers that have got nothing to do with the use of weapons. It's called a fallacy.
The comparison is invalid because they are different things.
Weapons are a killing machine, they are quite a few steps ahead of a spoon in terms of mortality. There might be more deaths by diabetes (that can also be a genetic disorder, by the way), but compare the number of guns / number of victims with number of spoons / number of victims and you get a statistic that is a lot more grim against weapons.
Same with cars.
Don't compare a killing machine with 2 necessary things and say it is ok to own guns simply because in a biased viewpoint the numbers look worse for them.
I understand what you mean, but that's why when you use that you should also make it a requirement on the dovecot configurations (:. Having starttls as an option and not using it properly is worse than not having any because it gives you a false sense of security.
Either that or accepting unscripted credentials before STARTTLS.
I was under the impression that IMAPs and POP3s were dying. At least the default installation for dovecot won't allow me to chose them as protocols (even though I can still require STARTTLS for encryption on the normal ports).
And you have to trust your sysadmin, since he can read anything on his machine if he really wants to (and sometimes, during maintenance, even if he doesn't. If it's private, PGP won't hurt anyone.
I'd mod myself down if I could, but even though the example is wrong, the idea still stands. Those who grant patents can't allow these kind of things to go through. These patents share the field with real inventions that end up not getting the credit they deserve because almost no one still believes in the system.
As I said earlier, I'd mod myself down if I could, but the main point still stands. This is a ridiculous patent and those taking care of the system should never allow it to pass. And I'm not saying this because it's apple, it's just that things like this are in the same bag as real innovation (I don't mind if apple finds a new more efficient and secure protocol and then patents it), but as it stands now, they all loose credibility by sharing the same boat.
Skype did that before apple every launched an iPhone (obviously, not on a phone, but using phone numbers).
Whoever allowed them to get a patent like that is an idiot. It's not just the system that is wrong, is the ones controlling it and that should be evaluating patents for things like prior art and actual invention that are failing.
If your 11 year old phone still works, why change it? Not everyone is a tech junkie and will only use their phone to make calls and send messages. My mother's phone still only has green and black pixels (: (all I bought for it was a 10€ battery a few years ago)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, ffs, are you telling me that a government based on lobbying is your fine example that armed civilians work at stopping it?! You're either delusional or ignorant or just trolling me, but I honestly think you're the prime example of people that should get weeded out when handing out the guns.
Oh god, you're trolling me. A VOTE keeps politicians in line EVERYWHERE. You're delusional if you think guns are a requirement. I quit.
I repeat this, since you don't seem to understand what a democracy is:
Politicians should fear the VOTE of the people, not the guns they have. A democratically elected government should never be deposed simply because you don't agree with their actions. There are other ways to show you're unhappy, for instance, not electing their party in your state or simply protesting.
Guns are in no way or form a requirement for a democratic country to exist. That is a fact, and the majority of the democratic countries in the world are proof of that. Some also came from civil wars and still don't seem to think it is ok to allow a widespread use of guns.
You can't ban all guns because there are already too many weapons out there. You can ban some high caliber / effectiveness weapons and ammo in order to flesh out the weapons as the ammo dries up and they break down. But that'll take a 20 years or so to do, it has to start now to get results in the long run. As it is now, where you can buy a gun over the counter on any specialty store, it can't be.
The statistics I showed were for 90% of the american people owning a car, not "there are x cars". If you read it again you'll notice I actually said the total number of cars was 250M+.
There are a lot of firearms, true, but if only 1/4 owns a gun and still the number of deaths is almost the same as the cars you can't say it is about the same risk, like you were implying. The ratio of deaths per firearm used is way higher (as I've already proven).
Bombs are a whole other ball game. One thing does not relate to the other. I say we should regulate guns and that has nothing to do with what my neighbour internet searches are.
Proof? Some countries require you to have a hunting perming that includes gun training, an exam and registration. It's as easy as that.
When guns are as widespread as they are in the US it is reasonable to hold a gun for protection. I just don't think highly efficient automatic guns should ever be considered for that. I have nothing against using guns as a hunting implement, and I consider that a reasonable use for it. I don't see your point, really.
From your own article:
Results: 38% of households and 26% of individuals reported owning at least one firearm. This corresponds to 42 million US households with firearms, and 57 million adult gun owners. 64% of gun owners or 16% of American adults reported owning at least one handgun. Long guns represent 60% of the privately held gun stock. Almost half (48%) of all individual gun owners reported owning 4 firearms. Men more often reported firearm ownership, with 45% stating that they personally owned at least one firearm, compared with 11% for women.
That's 26%, of the population versus 90% for cars. *sigh*. Obviously that means that most gun owners have 4+ guns, hence, 1 per each american.
Straw sales and second hand sales are EXACTLY where the stolen guns end up.
I just said that guns shouldn't be forbidden, just regulated. There would be a black market for those guns, same way there already is one for some of the forbidden ones, but that's not the same as over the counter extremely efficient killing machines. And don't forget that unlike drugs or alcohol when it was forbidden, guns wouldn't be outlawed. You could still own a gun, just maybe have some impositions on how you can legally get your hands on them. It's like saying you're going to ban Absinthe (oh, wait, it is already) and then saying there will be a huge black market for it (there isn't - because you can still buy normal alcohol).
You can choose to examine anything you want from a social standpoint, but GUNS do not relate to FOOD (or transportation, for that matter). The social benefit of guns is highly debatable and you were not comparing the benefits or the usage, just the consequence of extremely irresponsible use and defending that guns are acceptable because other things when badly used cause death too. This, is a fallacy, I don't care how you spin it (as you did). Using your reasoning you can make a case for pretty much anything, for example, killing of wildlife due to pollution and justifying it with an aviary that kills more animals than you. It's ridiculous.
As for your last point, OH MY GOD. Are you completely oblivious about what happens around you? European democracies young?! Greece (where it originated) Iceland (since the 900's, the US was not even in the equation), England and Scotland (1200's) are, in your opinion, young democracies? In most of these countries politicians fear the VOTE of the people, not their guns. And that's where your whole argument is wrong. If your current government starts to go the wrong way you should VOTE against it. The majority will win, and your guns don't give you the right to go against that majority. That's a democracy.
Then comes the Arab revolution. Those were dictatorships, not democracies. And almost everywhere but Libya it happened due to protests and pressure, not war or guns.
Democracy or dictatorships don't relate to guns. And in revolution guns will almost always result in a civil war (that's the worse kind - just look at some African countries). There are a lot of arguments that can be made for guns, but never revolution, i think.
And lastly, the constitution. Some guns are already outlawed. Why can't some more be too? I don't see why you'd need to amend the constitution.
If a gun allows you to be that efficient, it should be regulated. Be it .22 or .50. Prove you have a need for it before you get one. Or two, in that case.
Focus on University killings ALONE. And it's more like 50 years, not 100. So, only counting universities there were 19. There were schools, malls, banks and I think I recall a TV station once.
In Europe you had full blown riots in greece, france and london where the total number of deaths is less than the Virginia school massacre alone. The police used rubber bullets in england because they knew that if there was a gun, they were few and far between and it was enough.
These incidents could have have been avoided (or minimized) with proper gun control:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Copley_Township,_Ohio_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Grand_Rapids,_Michigan_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Appomattox_shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_County_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lake_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre
And those were all in the last 10-12 years with a high death count. I actually linked The Virginia massacre by mistake, I wanted to link the Columbine incident and lost myself in the copy past. But my point still stands. A mentally hill person was able to buy two guns strong enough to kill 33 people over the counter (I think there was a few days waiting period only)
There is a reason the united states have an isolated lead on articles like these ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killing ). And when in some states you have to pass through less hoops getting a gun than getting into a bar, something is wrong.
I'll say it again, you due to sheer amount of guns already out there, you can't ban them. But you can start controlling them better. For example, if gun enthusiasts really want to use high powered rifles, let them, but in a gun range with proper supervision. It's already done with cars (some cars are only allowed on circuits and the brand will fly it there for you if you ever want to drive). In my mind I can see no need for anyone to own more than a glock 19 for self defense, even if others might be better for it.
Ohh, the semantics, semi-automatic / automatic - Same thing and no real use to anyone that wants "self defence" unless you're fighting a horde of zombies or something.
And please, it's not the number of deaths, it's the number of potential deaths if a depressed teenager decides to go on a rampage. The fact that almost everyone can get a stupidly efficient killing machine is extremely dangerous.
In this century there are at least 19 confirmed university shootings alone in the US, nevemind all the other places. I'm not talking about the guns themselves, but someone wanting to do some real damage WILL do real damage. With automatic or semi-automatic (forgive me for the semantic hicup) weapons it'll be worse.
When I said a pistol for self defense, I was thinking about something you can carry. If you're talking homes, yes, a shotgun might be better. As I said, it should be regulated and real need should be invoked. You don't need 30 weapons in your home in order to feel safe.
And again, saying that there are more deaths due to handguns so it is ok to own ak's or M1's is a fallacy. I'm talking about sheer destructive power if someone were to flip out and start shooting without thinking of consequences, not biased statistics. Obviously that if you are in the business of killing, you want to conceal your gun. But you can also use a knife, a wire, a rock, a rope, your hands, a baseball bat or any other thing that can be easily carried without attracting attention. But things like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre should not happen. Ever. A semi automatic (again, sorry for the semantics) weapon should not be available over the counter for anyone anywhere without heavy regulation.
Obviously now that the cat is out of the box, it's kind of hard to get it inside again. Those guns are already out there... But if you start regulating now, with specific rules for buying new guns and ammunition, it would dry out eventually (in 50 or 60 years). But with no regulation at all every few years something like those incidents will happen again.
Your numbers are wrong. There might be a lot of guns, but the number of people with guns is around 60 million ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art29.shtml ) that end up owning multiple guns. From those, I'd imagine half of those (or maybe less) uses it actively every year for something ( as some of you pointed out, it's a self defense thing ). So:
31224 / 60M = 0.0005204 ratio (if everyone used it), but I'd say it is more like 31224/30M = 0.0010408. I'd also like to point out that they aren't used every single day multiple times a day.
In 2008 there were 255,917,664 registered passenger vehicles in the US according to the census. I'm not going to say everyone has exactly 1, but according to this ( http://answers.ask.com/Consumer_Electronics/Other/what_percent_of_americans_own_cars ) almost 90% of americans own a car. Lets assume that only 80% actively use it for something. That brings the total of 204734131 cars that get used every year (hell, I'd say every day, but it'd ruin any statistical comparison). So:
41059/204734131 = 0.000200547 ratio. So that is even less than half the ratio if everyone used a gun every day and almost 5 times less with the adjusted statistics.
And now, about your first point. Where do you think those black market guns come from? I won't say the majority, but some are stolen guns that end up getting sold in the black market. You'll be hard pressed to find a gun (and most likely would get arrested first) in any countries that regulate guns and don't have armed civilians.
About the fallacy, yes, it is. If you want to defend guns you use the argument "10000 robberies were avoided due to guns" not "these other things have bad numbers so it is acceptable to have bad gun numbers". It is not. An argument to be valid has to stand on its own, not hidden behind other social calamities. If death's is a valid point of comparison, do the same argument with people dying of hunger and you'll see how ridiculous it sounds.
And this: "other arguments that point out the fact that an armed populace is critical to a successful democracy". OH MY GOD. Are you this oblivious? Most (I'd say all, but not sure) European democracies regulate guns and, excuse me, are in no way unsuccessful. Where the hell are you getting these ideas from?
My whole point is that you can't say "these other death numbers are bad, so it is ok to have this many deaths due to guns".
It is already too late for the US due to the sheer number of weapons in existence, that should have been heavily regulated from the start. I don't think it is wrong to own a weapon if you prove your need for it, for example: A handgun for self-defense, a rifle if you hunt, etc.
I cannot understand how can AK 47's and MA41s or any automatic high caliber weapon can ever be allowed to exist in the hands of civilians. If one of those ever gets stolen (and it happens) it's another weapon in the hands of the wrong people that will contribute for the 12k homicides/year the US has.
But I was just pointing out that justifying guns with deaths by food is a huge fallacy.
I wouldn't say weapons didn't need to be created, they just had to be outlawed and heavily regulated like in the majority of countries. For the US it is already too late to do that due to the sheer number of weapons in existence. But remember that those "unlawful" weapons might as well be the weapon that got stolen when they robbed your house.
My whole point is that the number of deaths via cars have nothing to do with the number of deaths via guns. Quite sure that if you do the math with
number of deaths / number of guns used VS number of deaths / number of cars used
you'd have quite a different picture.
Either the whole point is moot. You can't try to justify the use of weapons as reasonable with numbers that have got nothing to do with the use of weapons. It's called a fallacy.
The comparison is invalid because they are different things.
Weapons are a killing machine, they are quite a few steps ahead of a spoon in terms of mortality. There might be more deaths by diabetes (that can also be a genetic disorder, by the way), but compare the number of guns / number of victims with number of spoons / number of victims and you get a statistic that is a lot more grim against weapons.
Same with cars.
Don't compare a killing machine with 2 necessary things and say it is ok to own guns simply because in a biased viewpoint the numbers look worse for them.
So, because there are other things that are bad (like diabetes or pedestrians being run over) it is ok to have those 31k deaths by firearms?
They are all wrong, and none is a justification for the other.
I understand what you mean, but that's why when you use that you should also make it a requirement on the dovecot configurations (:. Having starttls as an option and not using it properly is worse than not having any because it gives you a false sense of security.
Either that or accepting unscripted credentials before STARTTLS.
I was under the impression that IMAPs and POP3s were dying. At least the default installation for dovecot won't allow me to chose them as protocols (even though I can still require STARTTLS for encryption on the normal ports).
And you have to trust your sysadmin, since he can read anything on his machine if he really wants to (and sometimes, during maintenance, even if he doesn't. If it's private, PGP won't hurt anyone.
I'd mod myself down if I could, but even though the example is wrong, the idea still stands. Those who grant patents can't allow these kind of things to go through. These patents share the field with real inventions that end up not getting the credit they deserve because almost no one still believes in the system.
As I said earlier, I'd mod myself down if I could, but the main point still stands. This is a ridiculous patent and those taking care of the system should never allow it to pass. And I'm not saying this because it's apple, it's just that things like this are in the same bag as real innovation (I don't mind if apple finds a new more efficient and secure protocol and then patents it), but as it stands now, they all loose credibility by sharing the same boat.
Skype did that before apple every launched an iPhone (obviously, not on a phone, but using phone numbers).
Whoever allowed them to get a patent like that is an idiot. It's not just the system that is wrong, is the ones controlling it and that should be evaluating patents for things like prior art and actual invention that are failing.
Releasing the source code 3 years later when the game as close to no commercial value is not what he meant at all.
They lost a battle - the injunction battle. Not the war.
As I said, accurate description.
It just worked for me, and I'm running a Core 2 Duo 3 year old processor with a medium range graphics card. I'm running Chrome 15
There might be two reasons for that:
There are no patents on those form factors;
They already expired;
Or maybe back in the day when that was invented they didn't allow patenting simply on general ideas on how a device should look.
How so? It's a fairly accurate description O_o.
You're kind of nitpicking here, in my opinion.
If your 11 year old phone still works, why change it? Not everyone is a tech junkie and will only use their phone to make calls and send messages. My mother's phone still only has green and black pixels (: (all I bought for it was a 10€ battery a few years ago)