... the canadian taxpayer subsidized the development of the networks involved..."
It's bull. You can't find any confirming evidence because... wait for it... there is none.
There was some public money to provide internet connectivity to schools and libraries in Canada*, but it wasn't paid to the telecos or cable operators.
There has never been any taxpayer cash paid to ISPs or Telecos, aside from the fact that, like everywhere else, they enjoy a kind of utility monopoly provided they follow some rules, on the company's dime, in exchange for the same monopoly rents every teleco or cable provider anywhere enjoys.
You have to realize that there is a certain constituency amongst some of the more right-wing pundits in America to explain every difference that might exist, for whatever reason, in another country, as "they must be subsidizing something." A publicly announced initiative that has the words "government money" and "internet" in the same sentence is enough to make some fearlessly take whatever leap necessary to jump to whatever hasty conclusion the situation requires.
They jump and yell "Subsidy!" as one man, and just drink the Kool-Aid. Mercifully there are others in America who can actually think for themselves, and can see a self-serving political grandstand for what it is.
*Late 20th century there was a Federal Initiative to insure there was a computer with internet connectivity (could be dialup, was sat in remote areas) in every school, which they achieved by around 2000. Next, it was a computer with connectivity in each classroom, which was achieved by about 2002. Since these are all public schools, it's appropriate and hardly unusual that it involved taxpayer money... the entire system is run on taxpayer money. again, just like all public schools everywhere.
Umm, this just in... Apple sells a product they don't own, in partnership with those that do own it.
Apple has gone on record as stating they hate the DRM, they would love to sell individual tracks at a lower price, and they are all for selling albums, but not at the rate of 99c x the number of songs, but their partner on the other hand has other ideas, and the partner calls the shots. By law, basically.
I would guess that independent artists are not going to get anywhere because there are ongoing discussions with those that own the product (RIAA members in the US; others elsewhere) to sell albums on terms that are somewhat palatable to users, and that Apple is focussed on getting those guys to sign something first.
Those discussions may be ongoing, stalled, or left for dead, but regardless until they result in some kind of agreement, the album thing is not going to happen. Period.
"... [To say] that the Higgs boson is abhorrent to Nature is ridiculous...."
Of course it is. Being ridiculous is the absolute minimum required of anything worthy of study by Physicists; when it is no longer ridiculous it ascends to theory.
Self-employment can be an issue with Unemployment in Canada as well, although there are ways, if you jump through the hoops, to be self-employed while collecting EI ("Employment Insurance").
In this particular case she would simply have to show that she ran the blog while she was employed. If you can do both, you get to continue to do the stuff you were doing on your own without risk of being disqualified, as you have shown you can be a wage slave and enterprising go-getter at the same time.
It works the same way for going to school... if you were working when you were enrolled in college, you can collect EI if you are laid off. If not, being enrolled in college is grounds for disqualification, unless you clear it first (which usually means taking a 3-month course that leads directly to some field that some policy wonk learned four years ago will be in demand two years ago).
However anyone who has had even the most casual experience with a bureaucracy knows that you only answer what you are asked, you never volunteer anything, and anything out of the ordinary is likely to flag you for scrutiny, so you try to frame your answers in the most ordinary fashion at all times.
It goes against all that to volunteer you have a blog that pays you $5 a week and you've been running it for years.
"... I know someone who has a Storm, and she has never opened the web browser. Is that really the same kind of user who is on Android or an iPhone? She might as well have a single use phone (except she does use it for email sometimes)...."
Not sure where you were going, but you've nailed the difference between BlackBerry and iPhone users.
The BlackBerry is an outstanding eMail phone that also does the web; and the iPhone is an outstanding Web phone that can also do some eMail.
I find it perfectly normal that your friend chose a BlackBerry over an iPhone; she knows how she intends to use the device and picked the most appropriate one. Good for her. I suspect from your post you would prefer the iPhone for the same reasons she prefers the BlackBerry.
Which brings up the Windows Mobile devices... what, exactly, are they going to be outstanding at? More worrisome (for some)... are they planning to be outstanding at anything?
Microsoft has had success by not paying attention at all to that question and by throwing the assets they are good at deploying at the market, which basically revolve around getting people to buy by overcoming objections and blitzing specific areas of marketing. They're good at it... they wouldn't be here if they weren't. Salesmanship and good sales support does sell product; you can't deny that.
In the mobile market, (which is very different from the desktop/enterprise market) is that enough? There is plenty of evidence to suggest it isn't.
"... If I write that I love the Slap-Chop am I reviewing it?..."
If that's the substance of your written words, it's an endorsement, not a review. If you're not paid to endorse it or don't receive some form of "in kind" compensation (free this, trip to there, discount not available to the general public on that, etc), then have at 'er and worry not. That applies, by the way, even if your words go beyond "I love this thing!" to a full review.
Generally when rules like this are tightened, it's because Canada has placed citizens of a given country on a list due to large numbers of refugee claimants from that country (refugee claims are made while the visitor is in Canada... all applications for residency have to be made from your native country). Because of the way Canada's laws work, all refugee claimants can stay in Canada while the process works it's way through; generally it's a few years of residency in Canada before a final decision is made with no further avenues of appeal.
Recently, citizens of Mexico were added to the list. It only happens when there is a spike in claimants from a given country's citizens. After a while, if things settle down, your native country is taken off the list.
I took a moment to check out the most recent regulations. Currently there are four countries added to the list due to a spike in claimants from previously "normal" levels. Chile Argentina Hungary The Czech Republic
"... Because its the only way to break the DRM Apple is using. Its the only way for certain hardware/software combinations to work...."
DRM? Do you use any of these products?
I can put my music onto any device from iTunes to whatever. I use it with my BlackBerry Storm all the time; I've used it with every drive and music-capable device I've ever owned. It's not Rocket Science. It's trivially easy, and RIM (for example) doesn't need to pretend to be an iPod to do it.
"... Please read the letter USBIF wrote to Palm -- they *expressly* stated that usage of the VID/PID in this manner is a supported and expected function of the USB standard. They are using their VID/PID exactly in the way it was intended for...."
I did read the letter; I read the Forum's response, I read a bunch of other stuff from all the parties involved.
"They are using their VID/PID..."
No they're not. They're using another company's VID/PID.
Just curious... is your girlfriend a Costa Rican citizen, and did she have a Passport?
I say this because a good friend married a Costa Rican. He had to apply to the Costa Rican government, with assurances that she indeed was invited to Canada, before they would issue her a passport. He asked me to help and we wrote all the letters, etc on my computer; I know exactly what they said and to whom they had to be addressed.
It's the same for most Caribbean and Central American citizens... they don't issue passports as a right of citizenship like someone from the US, Canada, or Europe is used to. You have to prove you have a bona fide reason, and what amounts to an invitation from a citizen from that country, to get a Passport.
Getting that visa would be mixed up in all this stuff; it's likely that the red tape you encountered is driven more from San Jose than Ottawa. Your problem may be summed up simply as not allowing enough time... generally speaking citizens of Central America or the Caribbean will allow a year for the paperwork to clear, with most of that time dealing with the local officials. Any less and you probably are not going.
I see most comments here are taking the bait and going with what (I'm sure) Palm wants the debate to centre around.
In no particular order, and not to single anyone out, but just to illustrate: "... Microsoft was intentionally sabotaging their own software to look for specific string, and if found cause applications to fail...." "... Or take the easy way, and just introduce proprietary extensions to the protocol, that won't be revealed to third parties...." "... I remember a time when it was legal to reverse engineer things for compatibility purposes. (Was a long time ago... the 90s, perhaps?) I lot of people are complaining the Palm thing smacks of fraud, but it is no different than telling Microsoft Word that the document is opening was made by Word instead of Open Office for compatibility reasons...."
And so on...
This is not reverse-engineering. This is not circumventing proprietary extensions. This is not hiding code and hunting for it within applications.
This is a Hardware Device ID assigned by the organization that licenses a technology and insures those who use that technology do so in a way that won't, for example, cause a fire, since USB carries power.
The ID is not secret. You can get the hardware device ID of every manufacturer's product from a number of sources, including doing a Properties/Get Info on all the hardware connected to your computer. Software on your device can poll the 3rd party device for the ID string, to, say, load the right driver, or whatever.
"... Apple's concern is that the Pre shows up in iTunes as an iPod and people have been calling them about problems with the Pre...."
A post that is much closer to the point. But, we can take it further than that. That post was an example of what could go wrong, with everyone who supports USB. Aside from the fact that this is the highly charged Apple/iTunes/iPod vs The World spin, it's really not about Apple at all.
Many posters have commented (quoted above) about how Palm vs iTunes could play out. And, I'm sure, some of that will come about sooner or later; Palm seems intent on forcing it along with more than a few others. Whatever.
But, it's the method Palm chose that is the real problem. The USB Implementers Forum sees this as the wedge that breaks USB compatibility everywhere. If Palm gets away with this, every offshore vendor gets away with it too. USB Cameras made by some unheard-of offshore vendor now report to Canon software as Canon cameras. Any and all hardware that uses USB can now be spoffed by offshore knock-offs. Support issues, as mentioned by a poster here, are real concerns amongst every hardware vendor and cost real money.
Some of that may already be going on, but to have a member of the Forum thumb their nose at the terms of those who insure USB "just works"?
Which is why the USBIF will not let Palm get away with this for much longer.
The questions then becomes what do the USBIF do, and why is Palm insisting on taking this road instead of another? It has as much potential to harm Palm, as a hardware vendor, as anyone else, including Apple.
To paraphrase: The point of some rootkits isnt to go undetected as much as it is to be unremovable and to support the actual malware resting on top of it.
"...If antivirus protectors could collect data from machines and users, including geographic location, social networking information, type of operating system, installed programs and configurations... The bottom line is this: 'Let's ignore what the malware does on a machine, and instead look at how it moves between machines. That is much easier to assess. And the moment malware gives up what allows us to detect it, it also stops being a threat.'"..."
No, the Bottom LIne is this: for this to work, we'd have to trust you, and not only do we not trust you, we shouldn't trust you even if we did trust you.
So, never goona happen, regardless of how useful it may be.
I am somewhat struck by how readily some posters here are willing to bend over, lube up, prepare with a series of ever-larger dildos, and wait for the inevitable. My own computing experience, because of choices I made two decades ago, involve working with a lot of "unsupported" hardware, perephrials, and the like, in combination with my choice of "not the majority" hardware & OS.
For all of those two decades, "unsupported" meant that I figure out if it will work, I do the config myself, and if it doesn't work, I'd better come up with a story that jives with a failure mode on the supported hardware (in other words, sometimes stuff is actually broken, and sometimes I can't get it to work... If it's actually broken, I need to convince them it's broken on a supported platform; if I can't get it to work, I eat it).
This is a long way... A VERY LONG WAY... from disabling the thingy if I don't use the very specific hardware and/or OS that actually is supported.
Unsupported means I get to figure it out by myself and no refunds... this is not "unsupported", folks. This is extortion.
Microsoft purchased Komoku, a developer of RootKit Detection software with clients like the usual government and military suspects, banks, that kind of thing. Komoku's technology has been rolled into Microsoft Security Essentials.
I would think that right there is a good reason to check it out, and possibly implement it in your XP/Win7 system, especially since MS probably had a chance to do some tweaking on the RootKit detection engine using their proprietary knowledge of some of the more obscure aspects of Windows file systems, the still unpublished NTFS specification, etc.
Of course, if you have no RootKits installed, it might be more of a pain than necessary... after all, every AV app you now have running says nolo problemo, si?
Then again, how would you know?
if you do have a RootKit lurking, I find it very difficult to believe that Norton or Symantec would tell you so... the whole point of RootKits are to avoid detection, whether by conventional AV applications or otherwise, and to avoid removal by the usual removal tools available to AV product users.
Some RootKits are even stealth-installed by law enforcement, and the "person of interest" isn't supposed to have Norton go all five-alarm on them, if you get my drift. Not that we can be sure this will either... I'm just sayin' they are not trivial to detect, is all.
It remains to be seen exactly what MicrosoftSecurityEssentials does turn up, but in at least one aspect, you are getting (for free) security software that cost thousands of dollars had you contracted with the original developer prior to Microsoft's acquisition (March 20 2008) and prior to MS's adding at least some of that same software to this new app.
There will be plenty of people who will jump in right away and download MicrosoftSE. If you're one of them, fine; don't change for my sake.
But, the best advice might be wait a week or so, as the prudent should, to see if major issues develop once widespread deployment exposes the suite to a wider set of configurations. If all is well, I say "run her". When MS offers you the equivalent of "free money" I say take it. I never see them refuse mine.
"... I'd much rather have the firmware begin powering down radio functions once the main battery reaches some preset level of discharge...."
That's exactly what my BlackBerry Storm does. Only reason I know that is it happened last night... battery was low, phone powered up, can read eMail stored on the device, compose replies, etc., but won't connect to the network (the exact words: "radio disabled") until it gets a recharge, or you manually re-enable radio functions (presumably, for important or emergency calls knowing that there won't be much airtime).
Probably the method you outlined (" make an almost exact replica of a popular video game") has a host of possible problems going beyond the first amendment... one (of many) might revolve around defeating encryption, for example. Not to mention that it sounds like a tremendous amount of work.
But, taking some liberty and assuming there were none, and assuming you did manage to create a true parody, you can always make a parody of anything and benefit from some protection from copyright and trademark infringement... parodies are specifically exempt from certain aspects of Intellectual Property law. This particular ruling doesn't change that; it neither strengthens nor weakens the protection you would otherwise have.
"... The point is that as long as banks are not responsible for the losses, they have no incentive to implement strong security measures on their websites...."
Actually, it goes beyond that. As long as banks are not responsible for the losses, they have an incentive to weaken security in order to maximize the number of clients in the available pool of clients, who actively online bank.
This lowers the cost of running the bank and therefore maximizes profits (which cannot be impacted by pesky requirements to provide compensation for breaches and customer losses via weak security).
I personally know a researcher at the UofSaskatchewan (Canada) who has been working on this for more than a decade... in that case an injection of a drug, administered within half an hour of injury, completely repairs a damaged spine. In rats, no treadmill required, they scamper about as if nothing had happened. The rat trials, repeated many times over many years, are over and have been over for years. Primate trials are nearing completion and there is talk of having the drug available on Ambulances within two years, as it's considered viable to fast track human trials on actual injuries rather than clinical trials.
I also know of at least one researcher in the UK who has similar results using a somewhat different methodology.
In other words this is an interesting result and article, but this particular team is somewhat behind the current research, which is far advanced beyond simple rat trials.
Then it should be noted that, despite the parent's claim that "... that in the famed 1925 Scopes trial, which pitted lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan in a courtroom battle over a Tennessee science teacher accused of teaching evolution illegally, the scientists won in the end."...", Scopes was found guilty, and all appeals failed to overturn the verdict in law (The Tennessee Supreme Court refused to overturn the conviction, but the penalty was put aside on a technicality because the Judge imposed the minimum fine of the Butler Act, which was $100, when under Tennessee Law only the Jury could determine a fine in excess of $50).
So, it seems that the parent feels the Global Warming lawsuit will succeed, and he's relying on the "consequences" of that victory for the Global Warming side to prevail (somehow).
Since the purpose seems to be to fend off regulations, it would seem that those who intend to bring the suit would be perfectly happy with what ever public opinion exists, provided the successful lawsuit prevents their pocketbooks being drained via regulation and penalties.
"... Because the electronic health records (EHR) system had gone down the prior afternoon -- due to a power surge -- and the backlog of paperwork was no longer tolerable...."
The key phrase here is "backlog of paperwork". In about a day, the amount of paper records required to meet the data needs of the EHR system overwhelmed the staff.
It's not about the EHR system going down, or an inability to admit and care for patients via paper forms, because there were paper-based forms to fall back on.
It was an inability to cope with the sheer volume of information the system demanded. This is a cautionary tale illustrating the vast quantity of data we now collect. The EHR system enables the hospital to collect much, much more data than a paper-based system would have deemed necessary 20 years ago.
The easy proof is those paper-based systems worked just fine at the time, while collecting the data the EHR wants on paper forms, a system in place for just such an eventuality, is quickly overwhelming.
Slashdot Mirror
It's bull. You can't find any confirming evidence because ... wait for it ... there is none.
There was some public money to provide internet connectivity to schools and libraries in Canada*, but it wasn't paid to the telecos or cable operators.
There has never been any taxpayer cash paid to ISPs or Telecos, aside from the fact that, like everywhere else, they enjoy a kind of utility monopoly provided they follow some rules, on the company's dime, in exchange for the same monopoly rents every teleco or cable provider anywhere enjoys.
You have to realize that there is a certain constituency amongst some of the more right-wing pundits in America to explain every difference that might exist, for whatever reason, in another country, as "they must be subsidizing something." A publicly announced initiative that has the words "government money" and "internet" in the same sentence is enough to make some fearlessly take whatever leap necessary to jump to whatever hasty conclusion the situation requires.
They jump and yell "Subsidy!" as one man, and just drink the Kool-Aid. Mercifully there are others in America who can actually think for themselves, and can see a self-serving political grandstand for what it is.
*Late 20th century there was a Federal Initiative to insure there was a computer with internet connectivity (could be dialup, was sat in remote areas) in every school, which they achieved by around 2000. Next, it was a computer with connectivity in each classroom, which was achieved by about 2002. Since these are all public schools, it's appropriate and hardly unusual that it involved taxpayer money ... the entire system is run on taxpayer money. again, just like all public schools everywhere.
Umm, this just in ... Apple sells a product they don't own, in partnership with those that do own it.
Apple has gone on record as stating they hate the DRM, they would love to sell individual tracks at a lower price, and they are all for selling albums, but not at the rate of 99c x the number of songs, but their partner on the other hand has other ideas, and the partner calls the shots. By law, basically.
I would guess that independent artists are not going to get anywhere because there are ongoing discussions with those that own the product (RIAA members in the US; others elsewhere) to sell albums on terms that are somewhat palatable to users, and that Apple is focussed on getting those guys to sign something first.
Those discussions may be ongoing, stalled, or left for dead, but regardless until they result in some kind of agreement, the album thing is not going to happen. Period.
Funny thing about slide rules ... it's trivially easy to know if they are modified or not ... modified slide rules can only give out wrong answers.
" ... [To say] that the Higgs boson is abhorrent to Nature is ridiculous. ..."
Of course it is. Being ridiculous is the absolute minimum required of anything worthy of study by Physicists; when it is no longer ridiculous it ascends to theory.
" ... Mind you, I do wonder if outing NewYorkCountryLawyer's identity here might be a bad idea. ..."
HIs identity wasn't a secret; I learned it by casual reading on /. and it came out from time to time.
He just didn't throw it around in every single post, just the same as you, me, and everyone else here.
Self-employment can be an issue with Unemployment in Canada as well, although there are ways, if you jump through the hoops, to be self-employed while collecting EI ("Employment Insurance").
In this particular case she would simply have to show that she ran the blog while she was employed. If you can do both, you get to continue to do the stuff you were doing on your own without risk of being disqualified, as you have shown you can be a wage slave and enterprising go-getter at the same time.
It works the same way for going to school ... if you were working when you were enrolled in college, you can collect EI if you are laid off. If not, being enrolled in college is grounds for disqualification, unless you clear it first (which usually means taking a 3-month course that leads directly to some field that some policy wonk learned four years ago will be in demand two years ago).
However anyone who has had even the most casual experience with a bureaucracy knows that you only answer what you are asked, you never volunteer anything, and anything out of the ordinary is likely to flag you for scrutiny, so you try to frame your answers in the most ordinary fashion at all times.
It goes against all that to volunteer you have a blog that pays you $5 a week and you've been running it for years.
" ... I know someone who has a Storm, and she has never opened the web browser. Is that really the same kind of user who is on Android or an iPhone? She might as well have a single use phone (except she does use it for email sometimes). ..."
Not sure where you were going, but you've nailed the difference between BlackBerry and iPhone users.
The BlackBerry is an outstanding eMail phone that also does the web; and the iPhone is an outstanding Web phone that can also do some eMail.
I find it perfectly normal that your friend chose a BlackBerry over an iPhone; she knows how she intends to use the device and picked the most appropriate one. Good for her. I suspect from your post you would prefer the iPhone for the same reasons she prefers the BlackBerry.
Which brings up the Windows Mobile devices ... what, exactly, are they going to be outstanding at? More worrisome (for some) ... are they planning to be outstanding at anything?
Microsoft has had success by not paying attention at all to that question and by throwing the assets they are good at deploying at the market, which basically revolve around getting people to buy by overcoming objections and blitzing specific areas of marketing. They're good at it ... they wouldn't be here if they weren't. Salesmanship and good sales support does sell product; you can't deny that.
In the mobile market, (which is very different from the desktop/enterprise market) is that enough? There is plenty of evidence to suggest it isn't.
" ... If I write that I love the Slap-Chop am I reviewing it? ..."
If that's the substance of your written words, it's an endorsement, not a review. If you're not paid to endorse it or don't receive some form of "in kind" compensation (free this, trip to there, discount not available to the general public on that, etc), then have at 'er and worry not. That applies, by the way, even if your words go beyond "I love this thing!" to a full review.
Generally when rules like this are tightened, it's because Canada has placed citizens of a given country on a list due to large numbers of refugee claimants from that country (refugee claims are made while the visitor is in Canada ... all applications for residency have to be made from your native country). Because of the way Canada's laws work, all refugee claimants can stay in Canada while the process works it's way through; generally it's a few years of residency in Canada before a final decision is made with no further avenues of appeal.
Recently, citizens of Mexico were added to the list. It only happens when there is a spike in claimants from a given country's citizens. After a while, if things settle down, your native country is taken off the list.
I took a moment to check out the most recent regulations. Currently there are four countries added to the list due to a spike in claimants from previously "normal" levels.
Chile
Argentina
Hungary
The Czech Republic
There's your answer.
The Czech Republic
" ... Because its the only way to break the DRM Apple is using. Its the only way for certain hardware/software combinations to work. ..."
DRM? Do you use any of these products?
I can put my music onto any device from iTunes to whatever. I use it with my BlackBerry Storm all the time; I've used it with every drive and music-capable device I've ever owned. It's not Rocket Science. It's trivially easy, and RIM (for example) doesn't need to pretend to be an iPod to do it.
" ... Please read the letter USBIF wrote to Palm -- they *expressly* stated that usage of the VID/PID in this manner is a supported and expected function of the USB standard. They are using their VID/PID exactly in the way it was intended for. ..."
I did read the letter; I read the Forum's response, I read a bunch of other stuff from all the parties involved.
"They are using their VID/PID ..."
No they're not. They're using another company's VID/PID.
Just curious ... is your girlfriend a Costa Rican citizen, and did she have a Passport?
I say this because a good friend married a Costa Rican. He had to apply to the Costa Rican government, with assurances that she indeed was invited to Canada, before they would issue her a passport. He asked me to help and we wrote all the letters, etc on my computer; I know exactly what they said and to whom they had to be addressed.
It's the same for most Caribbean and Central American citizens ... they don't issue passports as a right of citizenship like someone from the US, Canada, or Europe is used to. You have to prove you have a bona fide reason, and what amounts to an invitation from a citizen from that country, to get a Passport.
Getting that visa would be mixed up in all this stuff; it's likely that the red tape you encountered is driven more from San Jose than Ottawa. Your problem may be summed up simply as not allowing enough time ... generally speaking citizens of Central America or the Caribbean will allow a year for the paperwork to clear, with most of that time dealing with the local officials. Any less and you probably are not going.
I see most comments here are taking the bait and going with what (I'm sure) Palm wants the debate to centre around.
In no particular order, and not to single anyone out, but just to illustrate: ... Microsoft was intentionally sabotaging their own software to look for specific string, and if found cause applications to fail. ..." ... Or take the easy way, and just introduce proprietary extensions to the protocol, that won't be revealed to third parties. ..." ... I remember a time when it was legal to reverse engineer things for compatibility purposes. (Was a long time ago... the 90s, perhaps?) ..."
"
"
"
I lot of people are complaining the Palm thing smacks of fraud, but it is no different than telling Microsoft Word that the document is opening was made by Word instead of Open Office for compatibility reasons.
And so on ...
This is not reverse-engineering. This is not circumventing proprietary extensions. This is not hiding code and hunting for it within applications.
This is a Hardware Device ID assigned by the organization that licenses a technology and insures those who use that technology do so in a way that won't, for example, cause a fire, since USB carries power.
The ID is not secret. You can get the hardware device ID of every manufacturer's product from a number of sources, including doing a Properties/Get Info on all the hardware connected to your computer. Software on your device can poll the 3rd party device for the ID string, to, say, load the right driver, or whatever.
" ... Apple's concern is that the Pre shows up in iTunes as an iPod and people have been calling them about problems with the Pre. ..."
A post that is much closer to the point. But, we can take it further than that. That post was an example of what could go wrong, with everyone who supports USB. Aside from the fact that this is the highly charged Apple/iTunes/iPod vs The World spin, it's really not about Apple at all.
Many posters have commented (quoted above) about how Palm vs iTunes could play out. And, I'm sure, some of that will come about sooner or later; Palm seems intent on forcing it along with more than a few others. Whatever.
But, it's the method Palm chose that is the real problem. The USB Implementers Forum sees this as the wedge that breaks USB compatibility everywhere. If Palm gets away with this, every offshore vendor gets away with it too. USB Cameras made by some unheard-of offshore vendor now report to Canon software as Canon cameras. Any and all hardware that uses USB can now be spoffed by offshore knock-offs. Support issues, as mentioned by a poster here, are real concerns amongst every hardware vendor and cost real money.
Some of that may already be going on, but to have a member of the Forum thumb their nose at the terms of those who insure USB "just works"?
Which is why the USBIF will not let Palm get away with this for much longer.
The questions then becomes what do the USBIF do, and why is Palm insisting on taking this road instead of another? It has as much potential to harm Palm, as a hardware vendor, as anyone else, including Apple.
To paraphrase:
The point of some rootkits isnt to go undetected as much as it is to be unremovable and to support the actual malware resting on top of it.
There are others. Many others.
" ...If antivirus protectors could collect data from machines and users, including geographic location, social networking information, type of operating system, installed programs and configurations ... The bottom line is this: 'Let's ignore what the malware does on a machine, and instead look at how it moves between machines. That is much easier to assess. And the moment malware gives up what allows us to detect it, it also stops being a threat.'" ..."
No, the Bottom LIne is this: for this to work, we'd have to trust you, and not only do we not trust you, we shouldn't trust you even if we did trust you.
So, never goona happen, regardless of how useful it may be.
Next ...
I am somewhat struck by how readily some posters here are willing to bend over, lube up, prepare with a series of ever-larger dildos, and wait for the inevitable. My own computing experience, because of choices I made two decades ago, involve working with a lot of "unsupported" hardware, perephrials, and the like, in combination with my choice of "not the majority" hardware & OS.
For all of those two decades, "unsupported" meant that I figure out if it will work, I do the config myself, and if it doesn't work, I'd better come up with a story that jives with a failure mode on the supported hardware (in other words, sometimes stuff is actually broken, and sometimes I can't get it to work ... If it's actually broken, I need to convince them it's broken on a supported platform; if I can't get it to work, I eat it).
This is a long way ... A VERY LONG WAY ... from disabling the thingy if I don't use the very specific hardware and/or OS that actually is supported.
Unsupported means I get to figure it out by myself and no refunds ... this is not "unsupported", folks. This is extortion.
Microsoft purchased Komoku, a developer of RootKit Detection software with clients like the usual government and military suspects, banks, that kind of thing. Komoku's technology has been rolled into Microsoft Security Essentials.
I would think that right there is a good reason to check it out, and possibly implement it in your XP/Win7 system, especially since MS probably had a chance to do some tweaking on the RootKit detection engine using their proprietary knowledge of some of the more obscure aspects of Windows file systems, the still unpublished NTFS specification, etc.
Of course, if you have no RootKits installed, it might be more of a pain than necessary ... after all, every AV app you now have running says nolo problemo, si?
Then again, how would you know?
if you do have a RootKit lurking, I find it very difficult to believe that Norton or Symantec would tell you so ... the whole point of RootKits are to avoid detection, whether by conventional AV applications or otherwise, and to avoid removal by the usual removal tools available to AV product users.
Some RootKits are even stealth-installed by law enforcement, and the "person of interest" isn't supposed to have Norton go all five-alarm on them, if you get my drift. Not that we can be sure this will either ... I'm just sayin' they are not trivial to detect, is all.
It remains to be seen exactly what MicrosoftSecurityEssentials does turn up, but in at least one aspect, you are getting (for free) security software that cost thousands of dollars had you contracted with the original developer prior to Microsoft's acquisition (March 20 2008) and prior to MS's adding at least some of that same software to this new app.
There will be plenty of people who will jump in right away and download MicrosoftSE. If you're one of them, fine; don't change for my sake.
But, the best advice might be wait a week or so, as the prudent should, to see if major issues develop once widespread deployment exposes the suite to a wider set of configurations. If all is well, I say "run her". When MS offers you the equivalent of "free money" I say take it. I never see them refuse mine.
" ... I'd much rather have the firmware begin powering down radio functions once the main battery reaches some preset level of discharge. ..."
That's exactly what my BlackBerry Storm does. Only reason I know that is it happened last night ... battery was low, phone powered up, can read eMail stored on the device, compose replies, etc., but won't connect to the network (the exact words: "radio disabled") until it gets a recharge, or you manually re-enable radio functions (presumably, for important or emergency calls knowing that there won't be much airtime).
Probably the method you outlined (" make an almost exact replica of a popular video game") has a host of possible problems going beyond the first amendment ... one (of many) might revolve around defeating encryption, for example. Not to mention that it sounds like a tremendous amount of work.
But, taking some liberty and assuming there were none, and assuming you did manage to create a true parody, you can always make a parody of anything and benefit from some protection from copyright and trademark infringement ... parodies are specifically exempt from certain aspects of Intellectual Property law. This particular ruling doesn't change that; it neither strengthens nor weakens the protection you would otherwise have.
" ... What kinds of features would you like to see on an eBook to make it closer to a real book? ..."
Well, mostly, I want it to be made of paper.
" ... The point is that as long as banks are not responsible for the losses, they have no incentive to implement strong security measures on their websites. ..."
Actually, it goes beyond that. As long as banks are not responsible for the losses, they have an incentive to weaken security in order to maximize the number of clients in the available pool of clients, who actively online bank.
This lowers the cost of running the bank and therefore maximizes profits (which cannot be impacted by pesky requirements to provide compensation for breaches and customer losses via weak security).
I personally know a researcher at the UofSaskatchewan (Canada) who has been working on this for more than a decade ... in that case an injection of a drug, administered within half an hour of injury, completely repairs a damaged spine. In rats, no treadmill required, they scamper about as if nothing had happened. The rat trials, repeated many times over many years, are over and have been over for years.
Primate trials are nearing completion and there is talk of having the drug available on Ambulances within two years, as it's considered viable to fast track human trials on actual injuries rather than clinical trials.
I also know of at least one researcher in the UK who has similar results using a somewhat different methodology.
In other words this is an interesting result and article, but this particular team is somewhat behind the current research, which is far advanced beyond simple rat trials.
Okay, call me crazy, but can't EVERY atom-level structure with atoms circling other atoms a "motor"? I'm calling "Patent Troll" !!
Then it should be noted that, despite the parent's claim that " ... that in the famed 1925 Scopes trial, which pitted lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan in a courtroom battle over a Tennessee science teacher accused of teaching evolution illegally, the scientists won in the end." ...", Scopes was found guilty, and all appeals failed to overturn the verdict in law (The Tennessee Supreme Court refused to overturn the conviction, but the penalty was put aside on a technicality because the Judge imposed the minimum fine of the Butler Act, which was $100, when under Tennessee Law only the Jury could determine a fine in excess of $50).
So, it seems that the parent feels the Global Warming lawsuit will succeed, and he's relying on the "consequences" of that victory for the Global Warming side to prevail (somehow).
Since the purpose seems to be to fend off regulations, it would seem that those who intend to bring the suit would be perfectly happy with what ever public opinion exists, provided the successful lawsuit prevents their pocketbooks being drained via regulation and penalties.
" ... Because the electronic health records (EHR) system had gone down the prior afternoon -- due to a power surge -- and the backlog of paperwork was no longer tolerable. ..."
The key phrase here is "backlog of paperwork". In about a day, the amount of paper records required to meet the data needs of the EHR system overwhelmed the staff.
It's not about the EHR system going down, or an inability to admit and care for patients via paper forms, because there were paper-based forms to fall back on.
It was an inability to cope with the sheer volume of information the system demanded. This is a cautionary tale illustrating the vast quantity of data we now collect. The EHR system enables the hospital to collect much, much more data than a paper-based system would have deemed necessary 20 years ago.
The easy proof is those paper-based systems worked just fine at the time, while collecting the data the EHR wants on paper forms, a system in place for just such an eventuality, is quickly overwhelming.