But this monopoly would be benevolent. Keep drinking the kool-aid
Why would it be a monopoloy? It'd just be another competitor. We're already seeing providers like AT&T dropping prices and increasing service in regions where Google Fiber is competing.
The rebuttal described by Microsoft doesn't involve the German government sending any orders to any entity outside of Germany either. This is the relevant quote from the article:
Germany’s Foreign Minister responds: “We did not conduct an extraterritorial search – in fact we didn’t search anything at all. No German officer ever set foot in the United States. The Stadtpolizei merely ordered a German company to produce its own business records, which were in its own possession, custody, and control. The American reporter’s privacy interests were fully protected, because the Stadtpolizei secured a warrant from a neutral magistrate.”
"[N]o way would that response satisfy the U.S. Government” because the documents held by the foreign company for safekeeping are private letters, not business records. And any attempt to take possession of those letters through a warrant – even one served on the company entrusted with those letters – would constitute a seizure by a foreign government of private information located in another country.
Sorry. Not being native and neither a lawyer my grasp of these things is limited. What's the difference? (honestly, I want to know in order to prevent misusing them in the future)
Being sued is in a civil lawsuit, usually for some monetary amount (for example by the family of the cyclist), whereas being prosecuted is for a criminal case, with potential prison time (by the district attorney).
Neither are required for life in even the slightest way. Plenty of fully functional people have jobs, homes and families and they never fly and don't have Internet access.
Just as a reminder, since it seems to be forgotten so often.
Airplanes are barely a 100 years old.
The Internet, or more specifically, the web, is only about 20.
These are not 'requirements' for life. You will survive without either.
Technically no freedoms are 'requirements' for life, you can survive without them. 150 years ago people of a certain skin colour didn't have any freedoms in the US yet they were alive. Even now, in many countries, plenty of people have jobs, homes and families without ever having the chance to freely express their political views.
The standard for freedoms isn't what's a 'requirement' for life, and it'd be a very unfortunate world if it was.
(i'm not a murkin) isn't the Federal Reserve's first duty to the private banks that own it and generating profit for them?
The Fed isn't "owned" by any private banks. It was created by the government with the objective of creating: "Maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rate"
"Open". Then who was on the other side of these Fed bond purchases? There's no report out there that describes what the Fed buys and who they bought it from.
A regulation allowing anyone to legally work around its intent is more than ridiculous -- it has no substance and is the same as if it didn't exist at all.
I don't think that statement is actually correct. There was an experiment done where people where told to eat until they were full out of a bowl of soup. And the amount people ate was strongly correlated to the size of the container, despite everyone believing they only ate the amount they needed.
I believe intent of the law may be served nearly as well even if one or two additional drinks were free. i.e. $2 for the first 16-oz drink, and then second drink was free.
There has been a lot of research in this area, that shows that the slightest nudge in the right direction can actually change people's behaviour quite a bit.
No one's banning anything. The only thing being limited it the size of a single container. You can buy a hundred 16-oz containers of any sugary drink if you wanted to.
It's very unlikely that a black market rise because I don't see anyone willing to pay any significant amount for a single 32-oz container instead of two 16-oz containers.
The fact that he has spoken at length in multiple speeches against this film, without one word in support of the concept that even hateful speech is Free Speech and protected in America.
"The amateur anti-Muslim film made in the U.S. that sparked anger was crude and disgusting, an insult to Muslims and America. It must be rejected. But the U.S. won’t ban it because the Constitution protects free speech. Taking that right away threatens the rights of all to express their own views and practice their own faith."
This whole unlocking thing should be mandated as soon as the contract paying for the phone is done.
Why wait? I mean in my country the phones only come locked in a very limited set of circumstances and can often be unlocked for a small fee.
I'm in contract with my mobile phone company. If I use my phone with them I pay the phone + my monthly plan. If I don't use my phone I pay the phone + my monthly plan. While I was overseas for 2 months using my phone with another service provider on a pre-paid sim card, I still paid the phone + my monthly plan. Whatever I do with my phone these guys extract $43 out of me every month.
Where's the incentive to lock?
The incentive is that when you're overseas for 2 months, if you're not unlocked, you'd have to pay roaming charges to your current mobile company to use your phone. Otherwise you'd have to get another phone. Once they unlock it they no longer have that revenue stream. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm just saying that's their incentive.
If you're open to considering locations in Canada, then Shad Valley is a great program that a lot of my friends have gone to. It's hosted by a university in Canada and is well suited for someone interested in tech. I'd recommend the University of Waterloo location as it probably provides the best exposure to the tech companies in Canada.
The non-technical user is a creature of habbit. I've seen them in a confused panic... when the ribbon came to office you'd thing the world was ending
I will admit, I still haven't figured out the ribbon thing. I've used the hell out of Office 2003 and before. But, every time I sit down to a machine with 2007 or later I get frustrated and either go back to a machine with an earlier version I get frustrated and just install OpenOffice.
I am a "quick key" user (or keyboard short cuts) and none of them work the way I was used to in earlier versions of Word, so I have to "Icon Hunt" which is such an unproductive feeling.
Anyway, my point is even technical users are creatures of habit and can feel this frustration. In the case of the above posting, I think the real problem won't be non-techies (who are simply directed to the icon and application they need), it'll be the techies who want root access (and won't be granted it) and want to install every social networking and widget app known to man. They're so used to all the little windows hacks (that they never needed in the first place) and will get so frustrated they can't hack their system they'll stand around at the printer and bitch and moan about how "they can't do anything they used to."
Tamran
All the versions of Microsoft Office that I've used with a ribbon (2007 & 2010) automatically recognize shortcuts and treat them like Office 2003. For example in Excel 2007, if you enter Alt+E, S that brings up the Paste Special dialog just like in Excel 2003. It's not obvious at first that the shortcuts will work, but give them a shot and it should function in the same way.
I use a program called Sandboxie that works quite well in doing sandboxed IPC (along with file and registry operations) in any app, so it's definitely possible with third party apps, but it's nice to see that sandboxing is finally natively built into the browsers themselves.
While $12,000 is quite a bit of money, it's certainly much lower than the July 2001 cost of $100,000,000. Also, my understanding is that most uses don't require sequencing the entire genome, but rather just a small subset of it. The cost per megabase has dropped from nearly $10,000 to less than $0.20, which does seem quite cheap.
On the other hand, Mr. Corporate IT, MCSE, is going to be very, very unhappy if he learns that some skeezy android application is siphoning off the internal company directory to some offshore FTP site because RIM has provided the android environment with a link to the Blackberry side.
What prevents a blackberry app from doing this right now? I don't see this as a new problem introduced by android support so much as an issue with any malicious app whether for blackberry or android.
thinking that the monitor cable from a CRT can go to an LCD
My monitors (LCD and CRT) both have a standard, interchangeable power cable (three-prong, no power brick) and SVGA video cable. I could switch out either one (or both) between monitors no problem. Are yours different?
Not trolling--I'm honestly curious
For most monitors the circuitry for the actual ac to dc conversion is within the monitor itself that's why it appears as though they use the same cable. However some of the smaller monitors do have a separate power brick, so that that the power adapter is separate from the monitor itself.
How many of you have ever actually tried buying these phones? There are tons of retailers out there that sell plenty of unlocked phones for the full unsubsidized price that aren't available from the phone carriers. mobilebee.com is one that comes to mind that I've used quite a bit. Look at the Nokia 1110i, it's a basic phone with a monochrome screen that does the basic job of dialing numbers for those that want it. It has 15 days of standby on a single charge. It's $80 brand new and unlocked.
Common sense dictates that if there's a demand for a product, why wouldn't a retailer spring up to offer it? The phone carriers can't prevent anyone from selling a phone. If a phone isn't being sold, the obvious reason is that there's not enough demand for it. Especially nowadays with online retailers, they can drop ship a phone, and have nearly zero inventory costs.
The fact of the matter is most consumer do want the phones with the cool features, and I don't understand why this is so difficult for so many people on Slashdot to grasp. I like having an mp3 player so I don't have to carry around an extra device. I also like having a camera so that I can take pictures any time I want. I have an extra camera as well, but I don't carry it around all the time. I currently have the Blackberry Pearl which I got for $0 with a 2 year contract. I like the fact that the carrier subsidizes the costs by spreading it over 2 years for me to pay it off. This way I have a single monthly fee and I get a new every 2 years.
This whole post is just a chance for people to go on a rant against the "big bad" cell phone carriers, without actually doing any research into the plenty of simple featureless phones available such as the Nokia 1110i.
No, the laws do not necessarily reflect what the people want. It is more likely to represent what the special interests groups that make the biggest campaign contributions want. The economy is a much better representation of what people want.
Google actually has a pretty cool journal search engine called Google Scholar. This searches through most journals and scholarly publications, and then somehow cross-checks the results with the publications that the library or school you're at subscribes to. For example, when I perform a search from an IP address owned by my school, for each search result, there's an additional link that says "Get it @ Waterloo" (my school), if the school has paid for a subscription to it. I use this all the time, because the search engine on our library site is really bad, it's nearly impossible to find anything even when you know the exact title of the paper, but Google Scholar always seems to find the right paper.
I think many of these points are debatable. While I may not necessarily I agree, there have been arguments made about slavery making the United States much richer than many other countries. Also, if you look at Canada, which developed into a nation much differently from the United States, where standards of living are comparable to the United States, I would again attribute that to the abundant resources.
While I certainly have a great deal of respect for the premises and beliefs the United States was founded upon, I do not agree that it was the most significant factor in making the US as well off as it is now.
You still haven't provided any reason as to why the law is right. You simply state that "catering to the whims of the economy would be doing otherwise, and calls for a modification of the laws." People don't choose the country in which they're born, and thus I don't believe the country has any obligation to protect them from labour abroad. If another person is willing to follow all the other laws of the country, and paying all the taxes, and not doing anything illegal, they have as much right to the job as someone else that happened to be born in that country. Many (if not all) of the components of the computer you typed this message on were probably made in China or somewhere else where labour is cheaper. The direct benefit of cheaper labour has allowed computers to be much more accessible to a larger part of the population than if they were only built by Americans in American companies.
Another point I'd like to make is that the economy is not some abstract entity, it is the aggregated wishes of the society. If the economy has a high demand for something, that means there are real people that are making this demand. Also, I think most citizens would prefer paying a lower price for a product, and if someone is willing to provide it at a lower product than why does American citizen feel they deserve to be paid more. This is the part I never understood. If I build widgets that cost $10, and someone else builds them for $5, he deserves every penny of it, and my widget-making skills are now only worth $5, and not $10.
If a cornfield that you own is plentiful then you have all the rights in the world to reap the benefits of that. If your city engages in good policy that builds up a good economy. And some stranger can provide production for that economy at a lower cost than you can, benefiting all the citizens of the city, then why should the city pay more to subsidize your inability to produce at that price.
The fact of the matter is the US had quite a few advantages in terms of resources. Also, all of these H1B workers are living here in the United States, so the cost of living argument cannot be used, if it costs you $x for milk, it costs the H1B worker the exact same amount. Finally, I don't know if the argument that these H1B workers are underpaid is completely true. I personally am a Canadian that got an offer from Microsoft to work on an H1B after graduation for an annual salary of $90k/year. I didn't end up taking the offer, but I know a lot of other friends that did, and they certainly don't feel that they're underpaid. Microsoft simply wants to hire top talent, and they just want access to all the talent they can, worldwide, including Americans.
Slashdot Mirror
But this monopoly would be benevolent. Keep drinking the kool-aid
Why would it be a monopoloy? It'd just be another competitor. We're already seeing providers like AT&T dropping prices and increasing service in regions where Google Fiber is competing.
The rebuttal described by Microsoft doesn't involve the German government sending any orders to any entity outside of Germany either. This is the relevant quote from the article:
Germany’s Foreign Minister responds: “We did not conduct an extraterritorial search – in fact we didn’t search anything at all. No German officer ever set foot in the United States. The Stadtpolizei merely ordered a German company to produce its own business records, which were in its own possession, custody, and control. The American reporter’s privacy interests were fully protected, because the Stadtpolizei secured a warrant from a neutral magistrate.”
"[N]o way would that response satisfy the U.S. Government” because the documents held by the foreign company for safekeeping are private letters, not business records. And any attempt to take possession of those letters through a warrant – even one served on the company entrusted with those letters – would constitute a seizure by a foreign government of private information located in another country.
Sorry. Not being native and neither a lawyer my grasp of these things is limited. What's the difference? (honestly, I want to know in order to prevent misusing them in the future)
Being sued is in a civil lawsuit, usually for some monetary amount (for example by the family of the cyclist), whereas being prosecuted is for a criminal case, with potential prison time (by the district attorney).
Neither are required for life in even the slightest way. Plenty of fully functional people have jobs, homes and families and they never fly and don't have Internet access.
Just as a reminder, since it seems to be forgotten so often.
Airplanes are barely a 100 years old.
The Internet, or more specifically, the web, is only about 20.
These are not 'requirements' for life. You will survive without either.
Technically no freedoms are 'requirements' for life, you can survive without them. 150 years ago people of a certain skin colour didn't have any freedoms in the US yet they were alive. Even now, in many countries, plenty of people have jobs, homes and families without ever having the chance to freely express their political views.
The standard for freedoms isn't what's a 'requirement' for life, and it'd be a very unfortunate world if it was.
How about BtSync?
It's based on the BitTorrent protocol, and it can sync over the internet as well.
(i'm not a murkin) isn't the Federal Reserve's first duty to the private banks that own it and generating profit for them?
The Fed isn't "owned" by any private banks. It was created by the government with the objective of creating: "Maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rate"
"Open". Then who was on the other side of these Fed bond purchases? There's no report out there that describes what the Fed buys and who they bought it from.
Here you go:
http://www.ny.frb.org/markets/openmarket.html
A regulation allowing anyone to legally work around its intent is more than ridiculous -- it has no substance and is the same as if it didn't exist at all.
I don't think that statement is actually correct. There was an experiment done where people where told to eat until they were full out of a bowl of soup. And the amount people ate was strongly correlated to the size of the container, despite everyone believing they only ate the amount they needed.
I believe intent of the law may be served nearly as well even if one or two additional drinks were free. i.e. $2 for the first 16-oz drink, and then second drink was free.
There has been a lot of research in this area, that shows that the slightest nudge in the right direction can actually change people's behaviour quite a bit.
No one's banning anything. The only thing being limited it the size of a single container. You can buy a hundred 16-oz containers of any sugary drink if you wanted to.
It's very unlikely that a black market rise because I don't see anyone willing to pay any significant amount for a single 32-oz container instead of two 16-oz containers.
The fact that he has spoken at length in multiple speeches against this film, without one word in support of the concept that even hateful speech is Free Speech and protected in America.
Are you sure about that? The below is a direct quote directly from Obama's speech at the UN:
"The amateur anti-Muslim film made in the U.S. that sparked anger was crude and disgusting, an insult to Muslims and America. It must be rejected. But the U.S. won’t ban it because the Constitution protects free speech. Taking that right away threatens the rights of all to express their own views and practice their own faith."
StartSSL provides free SSL certificates.
This whole unlocking thing should be mandated as soon as the contract paying for the phone is done.
Why wait? I mean in my country the phones only come locked in a very limited set of circumstances and can often be unlocked for a small fee.
I'm in contract with my mobile phone company. If I use my phone with them I pay the phone + my monthly plan. If I don't use my phone I pay the phone + my monthly plan. While I was overseas for 2 months using my phone with another service provider on a pre-paid sim card, I still paid the phone + my monthly plan. Whatever I do with my phone these guys extract $43 out of me every month.
Where's the incentive to lock?
The incentive is that when you're overseas for 2 months, if you're not unlocked, you'd have to pay roaming charges to your current mobile company to use your phone. Otherwise you'd have to get another phone. Once they unlock it they no longer have that revenue stream. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm just saying that's their incentive.
If you're open to considering locations in Canada, then Shad Valley is a great program that a lot of my friends have gone to. It's hosted by a university in Canada and is well suited for someone interested in tech. I'd recommend the University of Waterloo location as it probably provides the best exposure to the tech companies in Canada.
The non-technical user is a creature of habbit. I've seen them in a confused panic ... when the ribbon came to office you'd thing the world was ending
I will admit, I still haven't figured out the ribbon thing. I've used the hell out of Office 2003 and before. But, every time I sit down to a machine with 2007 or later I get frustrated and either go back to a machine with an earlier version I get frustrated and just install OpenOffice.
I am a "quick key" user (or keyboard short cuts) and none of them work the way I was used to in earlier versions of Word, so I have to "Icon Hunt" which is such an unproductive feeling.
Anyway, my point is even technical users are creatures of habit and can feel this frustration. In the case of the above posting, I think the real problem won't be non-techies (who are simply directed to the icon and application they need), it'll be the techies who want root access (and won't be granted it) and want to install every social networking and widget app known to man. They're so used to all the little windows hacks (that they never needed in the first place) and will get so frustrated they can't hack their system they'll stand around at the printer and bitch and moan about how "they can't do anything they used to."
Tamran
All the versions of Microsoft Office that I've used with a ribbon (2007 & 2010) automatically recognize shortcuts and treat them like Office 2003. For example in Excel 2007, if you enter Alt+E, S that brings up the Paste Special dialog just like in Excel 2003. It's not obvious at first that the shortcuts will work, but give them a shot and it should function in the same way.
I use a program called Sandboxie that works quite well in doing sandboxed IPC (along with file and registry operations) in any app, so it's definitely possible with third party apps, but it's nice to see that sandboxing is finally natively built into the browsers themselves.
While $12,000 is quite a bit of money, it's certainly much lower than the July 2001 cost of $100,000,000. Also, my understanding is that most uses don't require sequencing the entire genome, but rather just a small subset of it. The cost per megabase has dropped from nearly $10,000 to less than $0.20, which does seem quite cheap.
On the other hand, Mr. Corporate IT, MCSE, is going to be very, very unhappy if he learns that some skeezy android application is siphoning off the internal company directory to some offshore FTP site because RIM has provided the android environment with a link to the Blackberry side.
What prevents a blackberry app from doing this right now? I don't see this as a new problem introduced by android support so much as an issue with any malicious app whether for blackberry or android.
This is otherwise known as the Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Economic Injustice.
I'm pretty sure there's almost nothing Terry Pratchett hasn't written about at one point or another.
This just seems like an argument for why credit is important to have if used appropriately.
Hold on... What does this mean:
My monitors (LCD and CRT) both have a standard, interchangeable power cable (three-prong, no power brick) and SVGA video cable. I could switch out either one (or both) between monitors no problem. Are yours different?
Not trolling--I'm honestly curious
For most monitors the circuitry for the actual ac to dc conversion is within the monitor itself that's why it appears as though they use the same cable. However some of the smaller monitors do have a separate power brick, so that that the power adapter is separate from the monitor itself.
How many of you have ever actually tried buying these phones? There are tons of retailers out there that sell plenty of unlocked phones for the full unsubsidized price that aren't available from the phone carriers. mobilebee.com is one that comes to mind that I've used quite a bit. Look at the Nokia 1110i, it's a basic phone with a monochrome screen that does the basic job of dialing numbers for those that want it. It has 15 days of standby on a single charge. It's $80 brand new and unlocked.
Common sense dictates that if there's a demand for a product, why wouldn't a retailer spring up to offer it? The phone carriers can't prevent anyone from selling a phone. If a phone isn't being sold, the obvious reason is that there's not enough demand for it. Especially nowadays with online retailers, they can drop ship a phone, and have nearly zero inventory costs.
The fact of the matter is most consumer do want the phones with the cool features, and I don't understand why this is so difficult for so many people on Slashdot to grasp. I like having an mp3 player so I don't have to carry around an extra device. I also like having a camera so that I can take pictures any time I want. I have an extra camera as well, but I don't carry it around all the time. I currently have the Blackberry Pearl which I got for $0 with a 2 year contract. I like the fact that the carrier subsidizes the costs by spreading it over 2 years for me to pay it off. This way I have a single monthly fee and I get a new every 2 years.
This whole post is just a chance for people to go on a rant against the "big bad" cell phone carriers, without actually doing any research into the plenty of simple featureless phones available such as the Nokia 1110i.
No, the laws do not necessarily reflect what the people want. It is more likely to represent what the special interests groups that make the biggest campaign contributions want. The economy is a much better representation of what people want.
Google actually has a pretty cool journal search engine called Google Scholar. This searches through most journals and scholarly publications, and then somehow cross-checks the results with the publications that the library or school you're at subscribes to. For example, when I perform a search from an IP address owned by my school, for each search result, there's an additional link that says "Get it @ Waterloo" (my school), if the school has paid for a subscription to it. I use this all the time, because the search engine on our library site is really bad, it's nearly impossible to find anything even when you know the exact title of the paper, but Google Scholar always seems to find the right paper.
I think many of these points are debatable. While I may not necessarily I agree, there have been arguments made about slavery making the United States much richer than many other countries. Also, if you look at Canada, which developed into a nation much differently from the United States, where standards of living are comparable to the United States, I would again attribute that to the abundant resources.
While I certainly have a great deal of respect for the premises and beliefs the United States was founded upon, I do not agree that it was the most significant factor in making the US as well off as it is now.
You still haven't provided any reason as to why the law is right. You simply state that "catering to the whims of the economy would be doing otherwise, and calls for a modification of the laws." People don't choose the country in which they're born, and thus I don't believe the country has any obligation to protect them from labour abroad. If another person is willing to follow all the other laws of the country, and paying all the taxes, and not doing anything illegal, they have as much right to the job as someone else that happened to be born in that country. Many (if not all) of the components of the computer you typed this message on were probably made in China or somewhere else where labour is cheaper. The direct benefit of cheaper labour has allowed computers to be much more accessible to a larger part of the population than if they were only built by Americans in American companies.
Another point I'd like to make is that the economy is not some abstract entity, it is the aggregated wishes of the society. If the economy has a high demand for something, that means there are real people that are making this demand. Also, I think most citizens would prefer paying a lower price for a product, and if someone is willing to provide it at a lower product than why does American citizen feel they deserve to be paid more. This is the part I never understood. If I build widgets that cost $10, and someone else builds them for $5, he deserves every penny of it, and my widget-making skills are now only worth $5, and not $10.
If a cornfield that you own is plentiful then you have all the rights in the world to reap the benefits of that.
If your city engages in good policy that builds up a good economy. And some stranger can provide production for that economy at a lower cost than you can, benefiting all the citizens of the city, then why should the city pay more to subsidize your inability to produce at that price.
The fact of the matter is the US had quite a few advantages in terms of resources. Also, all of these H1B workers are living here in the United States, so the cost of living argument cannot be used, if it costs you $x for milk, it costs the H1B worker the exact same amount. Finally, I don't know if the argument that these H1B workers are underpaid is completely true. I personally am a Canadian that got an offer from Microsoft to work on an H1B after graduation for an annual salary of $90k/year. I didn't end up taking the offer, but I know a lot of other friends that did, and they certainly don't feel that they're underpaid. Microsoft simply wants to hire top talent, and they just want access to all the talent they can, worldwide, including Americans.