It's nice when corporations (or rather, those who work for them) are kind and good to humanity.
Having said that, that's not what business is for. Business is for making money.
Like processes on a protected-mode OS, business must be regulated to the satisfaction of the citizenry. If we deem it important that corporations do not dump millions of gallons of toxic waste into the river, we should not rely solely on good will and bad press to deter them. We use the law, just as we do memory protection, to curtail them.
What Mylan did was legal. Each time a corporation does something egrigious that hurts a lot of people, odds are better we'll improve the protection mechanism we have in place.
Formerly a customer for almost 10 years, I just recently closed my account due to their new policy of using Google's "SafetyNet," removing Netflix from the list of apps I'm able to run.
$50 bet: Netflix is planning to start introducing ads to their paying customers. Disabling the service on rooted devices is a measure to prevent people from blocking them.
If you own NFLX, now's about the time to get out. If they're willing to start picking and choosing who pays them money, it can't be long before they run their business into the ground.
I've been a Netflix customer for almost 10 years. If they block their app on my rooted device, our business relationship will have reached its conclusion.
That may be, but those who implement and support the actual fighting tend to be much harder to reach.
"Communism doesn't work! Here are my observations, calculations, and predictions! Let us communicate!"
or
"I want your coal, but I don't want to buy it from you! I need coal!"
vs
"The sky god commands me to kill you!"
Fights over resources or economic models can be debated rationally. The actors want something specific. There's room for negotiation. Fighting over things that don't exist is just a sign of mental illness (imposed, unfortunately) and when the mind fails, negotiation often becomes impossible.
Humans are perfectly capable of attaching religious fervour to anything, irrespective of its connection to deities of philosophy. Remove religion and people will go to war over access to resources, their favourite king, economic system, or text editor.
While true, war over those other issues is fundamentally rational. It may be unethical, but motivations can be explained and logic and compromise stand a fighting chance at diffusing the situation.
By definition, religious warfare is irrational. Forceful propagation of religion is a feature, not a bug, and most religions are constructed to render their victims immune to logic and reason (otherwise, the religion would cease to exist; survival of the fittest, and all).
Iridium is in the process of launching its "NeXT" constellation that should provide better (1.5-8Mbit/sec) bandwidth, but doubtless at prices out of reach for most people. On the present network we're talking numbers like $1,500-$15,000/GiB, depending on committment.
If SpaceX's proposed network proves reliable and is priced for consumers, they're going to take a lot of Iridium customers...
All Americans have the legal right to remain silent at all times, and guilt can never be inferred based on the execution of that right.
Honestly, that's all that needs to be said here.
The constitution is razor sharp on this issue. You cannot ever be compelled to say anything in your defense, whether it's a password, a location, a date, an apology, the number of languages you speak, or your favorite color.
Any ruling that a defendant must "speak up" to prove their innocence is unconstitutional.
Honestly, do you think the lawmakers in charge are idiots? They know exactly what they're doing. Telling them that they'll kill startups and small business is like telling them that anti-drug laws as they're written will put disproportionately more innocent black men in jail.
It's bad enough having to wade through all of the uneducated mouthbreathers and their "HEALTH GOODNESS WELLNESS NOW!!11" anti-science garbage sites.
Do we really need to see more garbage science on/.?
If you want to know the risks of aspartame (spoiler alert: there are none unless you've been diagnosed with phenylketonuria), consult legitimate scientific bodies, like the NHS or Health Canada.
The best thing we can do is to resist the pressure to upgrade our gadgets. No we don't need to upgrade every year and no we don't need the new shiny gadget that will be put in the dump in a few months. The fix starts with us.
I hate to say it, but I think we've already lost this battle.
I run a Galaxy Note 3, and have done so since about its release date back in Sept 2013. For me, it's flawless - 4 monster CPUs, a great OLED screen, thermometer, barometer, hygrometer, great camera (with 4k video), LTE/MiMo, running CM13 (Android 6.0.1). I have no reason or desire to upgrade. None. I'll still be using this phone for 3 or 4 more years unless I break or lose it.
Here's the trick: I'm on my third replacement battery.
This behavior costs the incumbent manufacturers money, and they have put a stop to it by gluing batteries into devices. They all do it now. It's disgusting. And we allow it. And don't be surprised if they start chipping and authenticating the batteries in the future.
This is the battleground, and very few people seem to understand it. Gluing batteries into phones encourages users to replace them at least every two years (as they typically start just long enough to last a day, and after two years, can't do that anymore). Replacement is mandatory, for many users, after 3. Forget about 5, 6, or 10 years.
The practice should be illegal as it is a huge waste of resources, recycling or not.
Easiest answer here is for the US gov't to mandate minimal acceptable response times for chip banking transactions. There's precisely no reason why it should take longer than a second or two to authenticate any consumer debit. If it takes longer than that, the bank's systems are broken and should be fixed before they're allowed back on the network.
Everywhere else in the world, chip transactions (including a roundtrip to the bank) happen very quickly.
If you don't see the value in having a portal to the Internet with you everywhere you go, you're not going to find a whole lot of people here who can comiserate. We build the technology these phones enable.
We found that driving performance of both younger and older adults was influenced by cell phone conversations. Compared with single-task (i.e., driving-only) conditions, when drivers used cell phones their reactions were 18% slower, their following distance was 12% greater, and they took 17% longer to recover the speed that was lost following braking. There was also a twofold increase in the number of rear-end collisions when drivers were conversing on a cell phone.
Hardly an increase of 10,000% as the OP suggests.
Driving while talking on a speakerphone/headset is worse than driving without talking to someone. Also, driving while tired is worse than driving while not tired, and oblivious drivers are worse than non-oblivious drivers. As usual, the devil is in the details.
They include talking hands free and using the GPS as phone use.
I figured as much. So, essentially, the study is irrelevant and worthless. GPS use increases safety behind the wheel, where texting decreases safety. So what's the net?
I personally use my phone to improve safety behind the wheel, by navigating with it. It allows me to focus exclusively on the act of driving, rather than looking around for street signs.
This really is the correct answer, and there's no legitimate argument against it. There should be a serious penalty for failing to execute on a carriage contract.
C) Continue to offer increasing levels of compensation until someone on the flight voluntarily gave up their seat, no matter what the cos.
Exactly. Like I was taught growing up - if you want something, you pay for it. You don't just take it.
Couldn't this theoretically be prosecuted under theft of service? They quite literally stole a service that he had purchased, and kept it for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you, CRTC. This ruling was long overdue!
It's nice when corporations (or rather, those who work for them) are kind and good to humanity.
Having said that, that's not what business is for. Business is for making money.
Like processes on a protected-mode OS, business must be regulated to the satisfaction of the citizenry. If we deem it important that corporations do not dump millions of gallons of toxic waste into the river, we should not rely solely on good will and bad press to deter them. We use the law, just as we do memory protection, to curtail them.
What Mylan did was legal. Each time a corporation does something egrigious that hurts a lot of people, odds are better we'll improve the protection mechanism we have in place.
Formerly a customer for almost 10 years, I just recently closed my account due to their new policy of using Google's "SafetyNet," removing Netflix from the list of apps I'm able to run.
Primary battles indeed.
Anyone else want my money?
This one is easy.
$50 bet: Netflix is planning to start introducing ads to their paying customers. Disabling the service on rooted devices is a measure to prevent people from blocking them.
If you own NFLX, now's about the time to get out. If they're willing to start picking and choosing who pays them money, it can't be long before they run their business into the ground.
I've been a Netflix customer for almost 10 years. If they block their app on my rooted device, our business relationship will have reached its conclusion.
That may be, but those who implement and support the actual fighting tend to be much harder to reach.
"Communism doesn't work! Here are my observations, calculations, and predictions! Let us communicate!"
or
"I want your coal, but I don't want to buy it from you! I need coal!"
vs
"The sky god commands me to kill you!"
Fights over resources or economic models can be debated rationally. The actors want something specific. There's room for negotiation. Fighting over things that don't exist is just a sign of mental illness (imposed, unfortunately) and when the mind fails, negotiation often becomes impossible.
Humans are perfectly capable of attaching religious fervour to anything, irrespective of its connection to deities of philosophy. Remove religion and people will go to war over access to resources, their favourite king, economic system, or text editor.
While true, war over those other issues is fundamentally rational. It may be unethical, but motivations can be explained and logic and compromise stand a fighting chance at diffusing the situation.
By definition, religious warfare is irrational. Forceful propagation of religion is a feature, not a bug, and most religions are constructed to render their victims immune to logic and reason (otherwise, the religion would cease to exist; survival of the fittest, and all).
Close, but the battery is glued in. No thanks.
I have one thousand US dollars I wish to give you in exchange for a phone with the following characteristics:
- Flagship specifications (processor, memory, etc)
- Removable/replaceable battery
- SD card slot
- Large battery (4000+ mAh)
- Water resistance and rugged(ish) design
- Proper sensor array: IMU, GPS, thermometer, hygrometer, pressure, ambient light
- Popular world LTE band support
I am not alone. Please address my market segment.
Let us, the engineers, technologists, and supporters of the Internet remember this, and use this knowledge when choosing network and database vendors.
Iridium is in the process of launching its "NeXT" constellation that should provide better (1.5-8Mbit/sec) bandwidth, but doubtless at prices out of reach for most people. On the present network we're talking numbers like $1,500-$15,000/GiB, depending on committment.
If SpaceX's proposed network proves reliable and is priced for consumers, they're going to take a lot of Iridium customers...
All Americans have the legal right to remain silent at all times, and guilt can never be inferred based on the execution of that right.
Honestly, that's all that needs to be said here.
The constitution is razor sharp on this issue. You cannot ever be compelled to say anything in your defense, whether it's a password, a location, a date, an apology, the number of languages you speak, or your favorite color.
Any ruling that a defendant must "speak up" to prove their innocence is unconstitutional.
A company gets to a point where they're so successful, they just have to jump the shark and ruin their success.
Becoming hostile* towards your most loyal customers seems like a pretty good way to do that.
* Advertising is inherently hostile; if a user asks for a recommendation, that is not advertising.
Honestly, do you think the lawmakers in charge are idiots? They know exactly what they're doing. Telling them that they'll kill startups and small business is like telling them that anti-drug laws as they're written will put disproportionately more innocent black men in jail.
It is interesting*, in hindsight, recalling the talk of "death panels" citizens of countries with socialized medicine must supposedly suffer through.
* Footnote left as an exercise for the reader
It's bad enough having to wade through all of the uneducated mouthbreathers and their "HEALTH GOODNESS WELLNESS NOW!!11" anti-science garbage sites.
Do we really need to see more garbage science on /.?
If you want to know the risks of aspartame (spoiler alert: there are none unless you've been diagnosed with phenylketonuria), consult legitimate scientific bodies, like the NHS or Health Canada.
The best thing we can do is to resist the pressure to upgrade our gadgets. No we don't need to upgrade every year and no we don't need the new shiny gadget that will be put in the dump in a few months. The fix starts with us.
I hate to say it, but I think we've already lost this battle.
I run a Galaxy Note 3, and have done so since about its release date back in Sept 2013. For me, it's flawless - 4 monster CPUs, a great OLED screen, thermometer, barometer, hygrometer, great camera (with 4k video), LTE/MiMo, running CM13 (Android 6.0.1). I have no reason or desire to upgrade. None. I'll still be using this phone for 3 or 4 more years unless I break or lose it.
Here's the trick: I'm on my third replacement battery.
This behavior costs the incumbent manufacturers money, and they have put a stop to it by gluing batteries into devices. They all do it now. It's disgusting. And we allow it. And don't be surprised if they start chipping and authenticating the batteries in the future.
This is the battleground, and very few people seem to understand it. Gluing batteries into phones encourages users to replace them at least every two years (as they typically start just long enough to last a day, and after two years, can't do that anymore). Replacement is mandatory, for many users, after 3. Forget about 5, 6, or 10 years.
The practice should be illegal as it is a huge waste of resources, recycling or not.
Easiest answer here is for the US gov't to mandate minimal acceptable response times for chip banking transactions. There's precisely no reason why it should take longer than a second or two to authenticate any consumer debit. If it takes longer than that, the bank's systems are broken and should be fixed before they're allowed back on the network.
Everywhere else in the world, chip transactions (including a roundtrip to the bank) happen very quickly.
You.. might be on the wrong web site.
If you don't see the value in having a portal to the Internet with you everywhere you go, you're not going to find a whole lot of people here who can comiserate. We build the technology these phones enable.
We found that driving performance of both younger and older adults was influenced by cell phone conversations. Compared with single-task (i.e., driving-only) conditions, when drivers used cell phones their reactions were 18% slower, their following distance was 12% greater, and they took 17% longer to recover the speed that was lost following braking. There was also a twofold increase in the number of rear-end collisions when drivers were conversing on a cell phone.
Hardly an increase of 10,000% as the OP suggests.
Driving while talking on a speakerphone/headset is worse than driving without talking to someone. Also, driving while tired is worse than driving while not tired, and oblivious drivers are worse than non-oblivious drivers. As usual, the devil is in the details.
They include talking hands free and using the GPS as phone use.
I figured as much. So, essentially, the study is irrelevant and worthless. GPS use increases safety behind the wheel, where texting decreases safety. So what's the net?
I suspect this oversight wasn't made by accident.
I personally use my phone to improve safety behind the wheel, by navigating with it. It allows me to focus exclusively on the act of driving, rather than looking around for street signs.
Were these figures included in the study?
This really is the correct answer, and there's no legitimate argument against it. There should be a serious penalty for failing to execute on a carriage contract.
C) Continue to offer increasing levels of compensation until someone on the flight voluntarily gave up their seat, no matter what the cos.
Exactly. Like I was taught growing up - if you want something, you pay for it. You don't just take it.
Couldn't this theoretically be prosecuted under theft of service? They quite literally stole a service that he had purchased, and kept it for themselves.