I'm not in favor of warrantless wiretapping, but you fatalistic woe-is-me drama queens irk me.
I read about some people a while back. Sometime around 1776 they acted like woe-is-me drama queens bitching about freedoms and started a country. Maybe you heard of it?
I can call ruling politicians a bunch of fucking morons, and not be killed for it. I can dance and drink and have sex out of wedlock, and not be killed for it. I can draw pictures of Mohammed and call priests pedos, and not be killed for it.
Ya, I get it. You like being an anti-social prick.
So yeah, push for politicians to not tap our phones, but drop the extremism. It just reveals you to be an angry kid, rather than an informed adult.
sure it does. And you're stooping to my level by ranting against my philosophizing. bye.
Unfortunately the odds are pretty hight that some of the rare earths required to make your phone were dug out in central Africa with wars being fought over them, and other more horrendous atrocities.
It would be nice to have the option of byuing devices that didn't cost lives, even if they cost more. I understand that not everyone feels this way, but some of us would like that option.
certainly not the stupid numbers some other people have been throwing around.
Not the same stupid numbers, but just as stupid as it is arbitrarily ignoring any cost you're ignorant of. Most obvious to me being raw materials. Fine, bring the manufacturing of every single part, and the assembly, to the US. But where will you get the minerals?
China is pretty much the only extractor of many minerals that are required for electronics. If your factories are also in China, you don't have to deal with that headache or cost.
Electricity: China produces their electricity however the hell they want: coal & hydro being very popular. Its quite a bit more expensive here.
Taxes: Neither of you seem to be aware that payroll taxes effectively double the cost of every US employee. So take your $42k and make it $84k.
Healthcare: Obamacare! Apple, I'm sure, has enough employees to qualify for the healthcare requirement. Each and every employee gets it, or Apple pays the Feds for the privilege of providing it. Be sure to add that in since, well, China isn't too big on health care requirements.
But thats enough. Point being, neither of you have any clue wtf you're talking about. So claiming "his number is stupid but mine is better" is just retarded.
I don't think that's correct. If you draw the economics graph representing supply and demand of a good, the theoretical market price and output is where the supply curve meets the demand curve. Consumer benefit is represented by the area above the market price but below the demand curve, that is, how much MORE people would have been willing to pay versus what they actually pay. Producer benefit is represented by the area below the market price but above the supply curve, that is, how much CHEAPER producers would have been willing to sell the good versus what they were actually getting.
Theoretically, if a producer could sell the good to every consumer at EXACTLY what that specific consumer would be willing to pay, neither the supply curve has moved nor the demand curve, and therefore the theoretical market price has not moved. It just means that some consumers (most, probably) are paying more than the market price, shifting all economic benefit of trade from the consumer to the producer.
So, against intuition, this system could not possibly make prices lower for ANY consumer than what they would be in a purely competitive market.
It sounds like you're still trying to apply the "specific potential" of the method in a general sense. Supply curves, demand curves, and theoretical market prices have always been used to generate maximum profit from the market; from the demographic; from the region. Not "From Bob Simmons, electrical engineer with 3 kids who goes to church every other sunday and buys only the best dog food for his 12.8 lb Pomeranian champion."
If the current price of some premium dog food is $20, that is an amount the producers think will maximize their profits. If the cost to produce the food is $18, they make $2. So the automatic pricing bumps the price to $22 for Bob because they know he'll pay it. However Mary Simmons, ex-house wife of an electrical engineer with 3 kids who used to buy the best dog food for her 12.8 lb Pomeranian but doesn't now because she can't afford it might be able to at $19.
but in reality they are just serving their market by offering the best deal available. If someone else could offer a better deal and attract these customers and still turn a profit, they would.
I worked for the largest at the time, I've seen their numbers, I've seen how they run their business. I read the contracts. If you really pay back $350 on your $300 loan on your very next paycheck then yes, cool, that is a service. But that is not the reality.
The contracts are worded that your loan is due in full on your next payday. If you don't call them and pay it, then the automatic payment that comes out of your account is the interest on the original loan +a service fee to issue you a new loan to pay off your old loan. This goes on for quite a while until at the end you're looking at 1000%+ effective APR; paying back $1200 on a $300 loan in just a few months.
But people don't call. They don't understand, or they don't care, or they're high, or they're stupid, or they're lazy, or they don't have the money (most likely... if you couldn't save $300 before, then you're probably living paycheck to paycheck, so why would you suddenly come into an extra $300 next week?); I don't know.
Just a small percentage of people going the full, or even 1/2 the full term covers the defaults (10-20%) and operating expenses (next to nothing... pay & benefits sucked too).
The industry is largely unregulated. It is relatively new and government is slow. The service charge, issue you a new loan, charge another service charge b.s. gets around most state laws that limit interest rates. Well, they did a few years ago; I haven't kept up on it.
Oh and this specific company. WOW their bookkeeping. Your loan balance was stored in the database as a comma separated string. $300 loan = "300". $50 service charge? "300,350". $50 payment? "300,350,300". It was like the wild west too with security. The owners did. not. care. They were too busy partying and spending the money that was threatening to suffocate them.
<libel>And they had horns and ate baby kabbabs with pureed kitten sauce</libel>
It takes advantage of people not knowledgeable about what they're doing.
Personally, I consider that evil. It is why I quit my job working for a payday loan company. They prey on poor, stupid people.
However, technically, it can also lead to lower prices for some people. If the real price is slightly too high for you, they'll lower it for you without losing money on every single sale and the lowered price will probably make you inclined to come back... at which point the price will probably go back up and like everything else just fluctuate like a pendulum.
And legally... I think it falls in line with what is accepted practice. Businesses have always fluctuated their prices based on consumer demand. This just lets them get more personal.
That's the US though, the UK has a different statement of fact: "it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something you later rely on in court"
You're too far down the legal road. These 3 points apply equally well in the UK as they do in the US for the point in legal proceedings that I'm talking about: Your first encounter with law enforcement.
The UK rules are simply setup to encompass more forms of communication (namely, being quiet) than just verbal. Imagine a kid swirling the dirt with his toes rather than verbally saying "yes, I did" when asked "Did you take a cookie from the jar?" In the UK, they'll look at both as admission, the verbal one simply being explicit and clear. But that doesn't change the very real fact that any time you are presented with a question that you know you cannot answer without lying or admitting guilt, or when you simply have no idea what is going on and want 5 minutes to think about it, you have a third option:
"I want legal counsel."
Once you say that, the UK is no different than the US. Barring very special circumstances, the police leave you alone until you speak to your legal counsel.
"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."
These are not magic words. It is a statement of fact. The emphasis I've added is what is important to you (IANAL, but nobody needs to be to understand the basics).
There are only a couple, very easy to remember, things that should come out of your mouth when talking to law enforcement of any kind if you want to avoid being detained for 8 months for something you didn't do:
1. Name, Date of Birth, address of residence.
2. Am I being detained / Am I free to go?
3. I cannot speak to you without my lawyer present.
That. Is. It.
Don't be a jerk to cops, but do not offer information. Even if they ask nicely.
For reference, 0.189 Hz is roughly once cycle per five seconds. Take a finger and raise it for 2.5 seconds, then lower it for 2.5 seconds.
This doesn't count as anything more than discrete pulses. I understand that the muscles controlling his vocal folds are performing similar activities to singing, but this is not sound anymore.
You sound like an 80 year old nerd doing the equivalent of yelling at the neighbor's kids, "Darn rock & roll! That ain't music! Its noise!"
In my day, musicians sang. They didn't just fluctuate their vocal chords in 5 second intervals to produce vibrations in the air!
I look at comments like Harry Reid's, claiming Romney hasn't paid taxes in 10 years and I think... well... prove it!
If somebody makes a scientific claim, do you assume they're correct until somebody else proves otherwise?
So why would you require Obama to prove that some internet troll's claim of "Obama sucks goats" is untrue?
It seems to me that laws like this simply put the burden of proof on the person making the original claim (the allegedly libelous comment), as opposed to requiring the victim to prove to the entire world that the claim is false. And come on... you can't honestly believe that dispelling the lies is possible with all the birthers, swift boaters, and moon landing conspiracy theorists out there, do you? Even "normal" people continue to believe the lies long after they've been debunked.
If you want to make a potentially libelous comment, what is so horrible about demanding you back it up? No more political fishing by claiming Romney is a cheat, or Obama is not a US citizen, unless you can cough up Romney's returns or Obama's Nigerian birth certificate.
P.S. I understand this law also targets the owners of websites, making it effectively impossible to host a discussion board without lawyers as moderators. I consider that a separate issue than simply requiring people to back their claims with proof. I also understand the problems inherent in being able to satisfactorily prove "the secret police kidnapped my brother" to avoid a libel/sedition conviction in some countries. Again, I consider that a separate issue.
IANAL:
Not quite. Cops can perform searches under 3 conditions: warrant, probable cause, or consent.
If you agree to get out of your car, they can pat you down for weapons.
If you agree to a breathalyzer test, they can administer it.
If they see you weaving, they already have enough to take you to the station. If not, they don't.
If stopped by a cop, and they have nothing, don't help them. Only 3 things should be coming out of your mouth:
1. Name, Home Address, Date of Birth
2. Am I being detained / Am I free to go?
3. I need to speak with a lawyer before I respond to any more questions.
Remember, "Anything you say" starts immediately when you're born and runs long after you're dead. Even answering Yes/No/Maybe/I don't know to such silly questions as "Have you had anything to drink tonight?" can and will be used against you, and probably in ways you wouldn't expect.
"I've got 99 problems, being a bitch aint one" - Jay-Z
So in conclusion, don't be a bitch.
And to the original poster that got stopped: Next time start "Cop Recorder", and get a badge #. If he pulled you over without at least a broken taillight, that was an illegal detainment. So get it on tape and press charges (So you know, they won't go anywhere, but its a start). Cops must be taught they are NOT in charge of us.
Woo-Young Kwak, head of LG Mobile Handset R&D Center, said at a press conference, “We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”
same page, further up. I was not aware iF learned from the auto-industry to lie about the year on their items to make it seem newer and better. So yes, it does look like the Prada received awards for a design *very* similar to the iPhone before the iPhone was announced, meaning Samsung should be in court with LG, not Apple. Regardless, the OP was just talking out his ass claiming 2005... and then bitching about getting modded troll for his "facts". (Is there a -1: Misleading/Lying" yet?)
So it was simultaneous development that produced a similar screen. Doesn't explain the move from round icons to square, or other changes. But Im not going to go further on that because I really don't give a shit and so haven't read the complaint fully. Patent wars between companies are because of the patent & court system problems, not because 1 is evil or bullying the other. There are plenty of phones to choose from, and the world courts have been mixed on this case, so I'm not worried yet that this lawsuit will cause any serious problems down the line.
The LG Prada won the i-F award in Autumn 2006 (it had been submitted as a demo to a bunch of trade and design fairs through that summer). That's why I put "2006" on this timeline.
Wiki says the Prada won the iF award in 2007. Where did you get your info?
Before the iPhone, most phones didn't have a large touchscreen, but that doesn't mean that everyone copied Apple or that others shouldn't be allowed to compete. Both Samsung and LG had an iPhone-like design before the iPhone. Patents should only be awarded for novel, non-obvious designs. The design was always obvious, which is why a large touchscreen had been used in sci-fi and mock-ups in the past. The problem is that the technology wasn't there. You needed a beefy mobile processor to power the display, and good battery life.
In 2006, there was a convergence in cheaper displays, better mobile processors and better batteries that you can three companies who had the same design. Apple by far did the best of marketing it. The technology still wasn't cheap, which is why the LG Prada and iPhone were both $600 (subsidized). The Prada was marketed as a luxury item, where as Apple appealed to the masses (even if they all couldn't afford it yet).
But LG won a design award in 2005 for what Apple claims they should have sole ownership of, when they didn't demo it publicly or release it until 2006. Samsung has documentation they had theirs in 2005 as well.
The fact that the design became popular and common when the technology finally supported it doesn't mean Apple is right. Perpetuating that lie is harmful to competition.
The Prada was released in December 2006, and received its red dot design award in 2007. I don't think it received an award in 2005. Perhaps you meant a different phone?
The Chocolate received a red dot design award in 2005... but it looked like an iPod, not an iPhone. Hardly the screen design you're talking about. The Chocolate Touch wasn't released until 2009.
She won, she tested clean for all known doping agents, she has been tested at least four times over the previous year and several times at the Olympics. No need for sour grapes and innuendo.
So did Lance Armstrong. He is still banned from racing for doping.
GP is stating that being brown is enough to be suspected of being an illegal, which means if you are a Hispanic US citizen, unlike white US citizens in the same town, you MUST carry identification or risk being detained as an illegal.
Not even sure why I'm responding... The GP's claim was:
The police are empowered to ask for "papers, please" of anyone that they "suspect of being illegal". Which practically means, anyone mocha colored.
Which is absolutely, ignorantly, and stupidly false. AZ's law regarding the subject requires the exact same probable cause as demanding a person stopped on the street to empty their pockets, or wanting to enter a home to speak to a person's wife, or detaining a person to verify their identity, or any other attempt to obtain evidence or detain somebody without a warrant. Some cops might do so based on how you look: blacks near a bank, oh must have robbed it; redneck in a tank-top, he must have beat his wife, but that in no way changes what the law requires or indicates how other officers will apply it.
A cop is not allowed to demand you empty your pockets, or check your papers, or do anything other than ask your name, age, and address (without requiring documentation to prove it except in a few limited municipalities), unless they have other reasons to believe that you have contraband in your pocket, or are here illegally, or witnessed you speeding, or some other probable cause argument to do so. If they demand your papers without probable cause they violate the law just as if they randomly demanded somebody empty their pockets.
You can determine who's an illegal just by looking at them, and discriminate accordingly? I don't think so. The police are empowered to ask for "papers, please" of anyone that they "suspect of being illegal". Which practically means, anyone mocha colored.
I keep hearing that stupid argument. "suspect of being illegal" is no different than any other probable cause argument! "suspect of carrying illegal substances", "suspected of lying about your identity", "suspected of beating your wife", "suspected of robbing a bank", "suspected of being here illegally". They all use the same psychology research to follow up on, and all follow the same lawful requirement: probable cause.
When people do something they're not supposed to do, they get nervous and act it. It doesn't matter if they just jumped the fence from Mexico, or knowingly ran a red light, or raped your sister. If you ask them simple questions concerning the topic they are anxious about, they'll get flustered, or sound like their answers are rehearsed, or do something else that gives them away. Once you've given yourself away on where you live, where you're from, where you're going, where you work, or any of a million different questions that cops ask absolutely every person they ever pull over, THEN they'll ask for your papers.
Step 1: Start Cop Recorder on your real phone.
Step 2: Use tracfone to record everything
Step 3: When cop steals your phone, demand loudly to know why Officer XYZ, Badge #1234, is stealing your phone
Step 4: profit.
> On the other hand, when Google does mine, they'd probably wonder why I watch
> so much Dora the Explorer on my business account. (It's tied to my business cell
> phone, which I use most often to keep my daughter entertained.)
Yes, we were kind of wondering about it. Thanks for clearing that up. It's been added to your file.
The Google, Inc. Team
xxxJonBoyxxx, could you step into my office please? I have something to discuss with you.
- H.R.
P.S. Can you first fix our server? We can't seem to access the Google+ report we purchased the other day.
You could create more accounts and constantly log in/out to avoid it but that's a pain in the ass.
You can do youtube in one browser and G+ in another... but it's still a pain in the ass.
Surely if this becomes a significant problem, an extension could be written to allow a browser to have a unique set of cookies per page-domain? Such that a page loaded from www.youtube.com would look like a different user from the one who loads www.google.com.. of course, there would be tricks to get around that, such as tracking referrerals and such, but a privacy extension could handle that too.. I guess even 'Private Browsing' mode could be extended along these lines.. I don't think this war will ever end, and there will be many gains and losses along the way.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not in favor of warrantless wiretapping, but you fatalistic woe-is-me drama queens irk me.
I read about some people a while back. Sometime around 1776 they acted like woe-is-me drama queens bitching about freedoms and started a country. Maybe you heard of it?
I can call ruling politicians a bunch of fucking morons, and not be killed for it. I can dance and drink and have sex out of wedlock, and not be killed for it. I can draw pictures of Mohammed and call priests pedos, and not be killed for it.
Ya, I get it. You like being an anti-social prick.
So yeah, push for politicians to not tap our phones, but drop the extremism. It just reveals you to be an angry kid, rather than an informed adult.
sure it does. And you're stooping to my level by ranting against my philosophizing. bye.
My freedom is worth nothing if I am dead.
Your life is worth nothing if you are not free.
If you are not free, you are merely a commodity. A resource to be used in the furtherance of your controller's desires.
Protesting in China is dangerous and in a very immediate sort of way.
As it was in Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Egypt...
lol. WAS?!
Unfortunately the odds are pretty hight that some of the rare earths required to make your phone were dug out in central Africa with wars being fought over them, and other more horrendous atrocities.
It would be nice to have the option of byuing devices that didn't cost lives, even if they cost more. I understand that not everyone feels this way, but some of us would like that option.
No. China extracts approximately 95% of all rare earths
And they don't export them.
It is pretty safe to say, If you own an electronic device, you have benefited from Chinese labor.
And it really doesn't matter where it was manufactured or assembled.
certainly not the stupid numbers some other people have been throwing around.
Not the same stupid numbers, but just as stupid as it is arbitrarily ignoring any cost you're ignorant of. Most obvious to me being raw materials. Fine, bring the manufacturing of every single part, and the assembly, to the US.
But where will you get the minerals?
China is pretty much the only extractor of many minerals that are required for electronics. If your factories are also in China, you don't have to deal with that headache or cost.
Electricity: China produces their electricity however the hell they want: coal & hydro being very popular. Its quite a bit more expensive here.
Taxes: Neither of you seem to be aware that payroll taxes effectively double the cost of every US employee. So take your $42k and make it $84k.
Healthcare: Obamacare! Apple, I'm sure, has enough employees to qualify for the healthcare requirement. Each and every employee gets it, or Apple pays the Feds for the privilege of providing it. Be sure to add that in since, well, China isn't too big on health care requirements.
But thats enough. Point being, neither of you have any clue wtf you're talking about. So claiming "his number is stupid but mine is better" is just retarded.
That means that you're looking at at most a 25% price hike to build those phones in the US. Not the 200% increase that you pulled out of your ass.
He pulled one number out of his ass, you pulled 3 or 4 and added them up.
Since you seem to know, I'll ask you. How much shit do you have to add to a pile before it stops smelling like shit?
I don't think that's correct. If you draw the economics graph representing supply and demand of a good, the theoretical market price and output is where the supply curve meets the demand curve. Consumer benefit is represented by the area above the market price but below the demand curve, that is, how much MORE people would have been willing to pay versus what they actually pay. Producer benefit is represented by the area below the market price but above the supply curve, that is, how much CHEAPER producers would have been willing to sell the good versus what they were actually getting.
Theoretically, if a producer could sell the good to every consumer at EXACTLY what that specific consumer would be willing to pay, neither the supply curve has moved nor the demand curve, and therefore the theoretical market price has not moved. It just means that some consumers (most, probably) are paying more than the market price, shifting all economic benefit of trade from the consumer to the producer.
So, against intuition, this system could not possibly make prices lower for ANY consumer than what they would be in a purely competitive market.
It sounds like you're still trying to apply the "specific potential" of the method in a general sense. Supply curves, demand curves, and theoretical market prices have always been used to generate maximum profit from the market; from the demographic; from the region. Not "From Bob Simmons, electrical engineer with 3 kids who goes to church every other sunday and buys only the best dog food for his 12.8 lb Pomeranian champion."
If the current price of some premium dog food is $20, that is an amount the producers think will maximize their profits. If the cost to produce the food is $18, they make $2. So the automatic pricing bumps the price to $22 for Bob because they know he'll pay it. However Mary Simmons, ex-house wife of an electrical engineer with 3 kids who used to buy the best dog food for her 12.8 lb Pomeranian but doesn't now because she can't afford it might be able to at $19.
but in reality they are just serving their market by offering the best deal available. If someone else could offer a better deal and attract these customers and still turn a profit, they would.
I worked for the largest at the time, I've seen their numbers, I've seen how they run their business. I read the contracts. If you really pay back $350 on your $300 loan on your very next paycheck then yes, cool, that is a service. But that is not the reality.
The contracts are worded that your loan is due in full on your next payday. If you don't call them and pay it, then the automatic payment that comes out of your account is the interest on the original loan +a service fee to issue you a new loan to pay off your old loan. This goes on for quite a while until at the end you're looking at 1000%+ effective APR; paying back $1200 on a $300 loan in just a few months.
But people don't call. They don't understand, or they don't care, or they're high, or they're stupid, or they're lazy, or they don't have the money (most likely... if you couldn't save $300 before, then you're probably living paycheck to paycheck, so why would you suddenly come into an extra $300 next week?); I don't know.
Just a small percentage of people going the full, or even 1/2 the full term covers the defaults (10-20%) and operating expenses (next to nothing... pay & benefits sucked too).
The industry is largely unregulated. It is relatively new and government is slow. The service charge, issue you a new loan, charge another service charge b.s. gets around most state laws that limit interest rates. Well, they did a few years ago; I haven't kept up on it.
Oh and this specific company. WOW their bookkeeping. Your loan balance was stored in the database as a comma separated string. $300 loan = "300". $50 service charge? "300,350". $50 payment? "300,350,300". It was like the wild west too with security. The owners did. not. care. They were too busy partying and spending the money that was threatening to suffocate them.
<libel>And they had horns and ate baby kabbabs with pureed kitten sauce</libel>
Personally, I consider that evil. It is why I quit my job working for a payday loan company. They prey on poor, stupid people.
However, technically, it can also lead to lower prices for some people. If the real price is slightly too high for you, they'll lower it for you without losing money on every single sale and the lowered price will probably make you inclined to come back... at which point the price will probably go back up and like everything else just fluctuate like a pendulum.
And legally... I think it falls in line with what is accepted practice. Businesses have always fluctuated their prices based on consumer demand. This just lets them get more personal.
That's the US though, the UK has a different statement of fact: "it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something you later rely on in court"
You're too far down the legal road. These 3 points apply equally well in the UK as they do in the US for the point in legal proceedings that I'm talking about: Your first encounter with law enforcement.
The UK rules are simply setup to encompass more forms of communication (namely, being quiet) than just verbal. Imagine a kid swirling the dirt with his toes rather than verbally saying "yes, I did" when asked "Did you take a cookie from the jar?" In the UK, they'll look at both as admission, the verbal one simply being explicit and clear. But that doesn't change the very real fact that any time you are presented with a question that you know you cannot answer without lying or admitting guilt, or when you simply have no idea what is going on and want 5 minutes to think about it, you have a third option:
"I want legal counsel."
Once you say that, the UK is no different than the US. Barring very special circumstances, the police leave you alone until you speak to your legal counsel.
These are not magic words. It is a statement of fact. The emphasis I've added is what is important to you (IANAL, but nobody needs to be to understand the basics).
There are only a couple, very easy to remember, things that should come out of your mouth when talking to law enforcement of any kind if you want to avoid being detained for 8 months for something you didn't do:
1. Name, Date of Birth, address of residence.
2. Am I being detained / Am I free to go?
3. I cannot speak to you without my lawyer present.
That. Is. It.
Don't be a jerk to cops, but do not offer information. Even if they ask nicely.
For reference, 0.189 Hz is roughly once cycle per five seconds. Take a finger and raise it for 2.5 seconds, then lower it for 2.5 seconds.
This doesn't count as anything more than discrete pulses. I understand that the muscles controlling his vocal folds are performing similar activities to singing, but this is not sound anymore.
You sound like an 80 year old nerd doing the equivalent of yelling at the neighbor's kids, "Darn rock & roll! That ain't music! Its noise!"
In my day, musicians sang. They didn't just fluctuate their vocal chords in 5 second intervals to produce vibrations in the air!
If somebody makes a scientific claim, do you assume they're correct until somebody else proves otherwise?
So why would you require Obama to prove that some internet troll's claim of "Obama sucks goats" is untrue?
It seems to me that laws like this simply put the burden of proof on the person making the original claim (the allegedly libelous comment), as opposed to requiring the victim to prove to the entire world that the claim is false. And come on... you can't honestly believe that dispelling the lies is possible with all the birthers, swift boaters, and moon landing conspiracy theorists out there, do you? Even "normal" people continue to believe the lies long after they've been debunked.
If you want to make a potentially libelous comment, what is so horrible about demanding you back it up? No more political fishing by claiming Romney is a cheat, or Obama is not a US citizen, unless you can cough up Romney's returns or Obama's Nigerian birth certificate.
P.S. I understand this law also targets the owners of websites, making it effectively impossible to host a discussion board without lawyers as moderators. I consider that a separate issue than simply requiring people to back their claims with proof. I also understand the problems inherent in being able to satisfactorily prove "the secret police kidnapped my brother" to avoid a libel/sedition conviction in some countries. Again, I consider that a separate issue.
I used to teach at a local community college
so I could show them how well their doing
ouch
But remember, evil is subjective.
Without probable cause, it's illegal.
IANAL:
Not quite. Cops can perform searches under 3 conditions: warrant, probable cause, or consent.
If you agree to get out of your car, they can pat you down for weapons.
If you agree to a breathalyzer test, they can administer it.
If they see you weaving, they already have enough to take you to the station. If not, they don't.
If stopped by a cop, and they have nothing, don't help them. Only 3 things should be coming out of your mouth:
1. Name, Home Address, Date of Birth
2. Am I being detained / Am I free to go?
3. I need to speak with a lawyer before I respond to any more questions.
Remember, "Anything you say" starts immediately when you're born and runs long after you're dead. Even answering Yes/No/Maybe/I don't know to such silly questions as "Have you had anything to drink tonight?" can and will be used against you, and probably in ways you wouldn't expect.
"I've got 99 problems, being a bitch aint one" - Jay-Z
So in conclusion, don't be a bitch.
And to the original poster that got stopped: Next time start "Cop Recorder", and get a badge #. If he pulled you over without at least a broken taillight, that was an illegal detainment. So get it on tape and press charges (So you know, they won't go anywhere, but its a start). Cops must be taught they are NOT in charge of us.
Wiki says the Prada won the iF award in 2007.
There's a lot of wikis out there. Wikipedia English says this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA#iPhone_controversy
same page, further up. I was not aware iF learned from the auto-industry to lie about the year on their items to make it seem newer and better. So yes, it does look like the Prada received awards for a design *very* similar to the iPhone before the iPhone was announced, meaning Samsung should be in court with LG, not Apple. Regardless, the OP was just talking out his ass claiming 2005... and then bitching about getting modded troll for his "facts". (Is there a -1: Misleading/Lying" yet?)
So it was simultaneous development that produced a similar screen. Doesn't explain the move from round icons to square, or other changes. But Im not going to go further on that because I really don't give a shit and so haven't read the complaint fully. Patent wars between companies are because of the patent & court system problems, not because 1 is evil or bullying the other. There are plenty of phones to choose from, and the world courts have been mixed on this case, so I'm not worried yet that this lawsuit will cause any serious problems down the line.
I don't think it received an award in 2005
The LG Prada won the i-F award in Autumn 2006 (it had been submitted as a demo to a bunch of trade and design fairs through that summer). That's why I put "2006" on this timeline.
Wiki says the Prada won the iF award in 2007. Where did you get your info?
This is a simplistic and incorrect view.
Before the iPhone, most phones didn't have a large touchscreen, but that doesn't mean that everyone copied Apple or that others shouldn't be allowed to compete. Both Samsung and LG had an iPhone-like design before the iPhone. Patents should only be awarded for novel, non-obvious designs. The design was always obvious, which is why a large touchscreen had been used in sci-fi and mock-ups in the past. The problem is that the technology wasn't there. You needed a beefy mobile processor to power the display, and good battery life.
In 2006, there was a convergence in cheaper displays, better mobile processors and better batteries that you can three companies who had the same design. Apple by far did the best of marketing it. The technology still wasn't cheap, which is why the LG Prada and iPhone were both $600 (subsidized). The Prada was marketed as a luxury item, where as Apple appealed to the masses (even if they all couldn't afford it yet).
But LG won a design award in 2005 for what Apple claims they should have sole ownership of, when they didn't demo it publicly or release it until 2006. Samsung has documentation they had theirs in 2005 as well.
The fact that the design became popular and common when the technology finally supported it doesn't mean Apple is right. Perpetuating that lie is harmful to competition.
The Prada was released in December 2006, and received its red dot design award in 2007. I don't think it received an award in 2005. Perhaps you meant a different phone?
The Chocolate received a red dot design award in 2005... but it looked like an iPod, not an iPhone. Hardly the screen design you're talking about. The Chocolate Touch wasn't released until 2009.
She won, she tested clean for all known doping agents, she has been tested at least four times over the previous year and several times at the Olympics. No need for sour grapes and innuendo.
So did Lance Armstrong. He is still banned from racing for doping.
GP is stating that being brown is enough to be suspected of being an illegal, which means if you are a Hispanic US citizen, unlike white US citizens in the same town, you MUST carry identification or risk being detained as an illegal.
Not even sure why I'm responding... The GP's claim was:
The police are empowered to ask for "papers, please" of anyone that they "suspect of being illegal". Which practically means, anyone mocha colored.
Which is absolutely, ignorantly, and stupidly false. AZ's law regarding the subject requires the exact same probable cause as demanding a person stopped on the street to empty their pockets, or wanting to enter a home to speak to a person's wife, or detaining a person to verify their identity, or any other attempt to obtain evidence or detain somebody without a warrant. Some cops might do so based on how you look: blacks near a bank, oh must have robbed it; redneck in a tank-top, he must have beat his wife, but that in no way changes what the law requires or indicates how other officers will apply it.
A cop is not allowed to demand you empty your pockets, or check your papers, or do anything other than ask your name, age, and address (without requiring documentation to prove it except in a few limited municipalities), unless they have other reasons to believe that you have contraband in your pocket, or are here illegally, or witnessed you speeding, or some other probable cause argument to do so. If they demand your papers without probable cause they violate the law just as if they randomly demanded somebody empty their pockets.
You can determine who's an illegal just by looking at them, and discriminate accordingly? I don't think so. The police are empowered to ask for "papers, please" of anyone that they "suspect of being illegal". Which practically means, anyone mocha colored.
I keep hearing that stupid argument. "suspect of being illegal" is no different than any other probable cause argument! "suspect of carrying illegal substances", "suspected of lying about your identity", "suspected of beating your wife", "suspected of robbing a bank", "suspected of being here illegally". They all use the same psychology research to follow up on, and all follow the same lawful requirement: probable cause.
When people do something they're not supposed to do, they get nervous and act it. It doesn't matter if they just jumped the fence from Mexico, or knowingly ran a red light, or raped your sister. If you ask them simple questions concerning the topic they are anxious about, they'll get flustered, or sound like their answers are rehearsed, or do something else that gives them away. Once you've given yourself away on where you live, where you're from, where you're going, where you work, or any of a million different questions that cops ask absolutely every person they ever pull over, THEN they'll ask for your papers.
Step 1: Start Cop Recorder on your real phone.
Step 2: Use tracfone to record everything
Step 3: When cop steals your phone, demand loudly to know why Officer XYZ, Badge #1234, is stealing your phone
Step 4: profit.
> On the other hand, when Google does mine, they'd probably wonder why I watch > so much Dora the Explorer on my business account. (It's tied to my business cell > phone, which I use most often to keep my daughter entertained.)
Yes, we were kind of wondering about it. Thanks for clearing that up. It's been added to your file.
The Google, Inc. Team
xxxJonBoyxxx, could you step into my office please? I have something to discuss with you.
- H.R.
P.S. Can you first fix our server? We can't seem to access the Google+ report we purchased the other day.
Surely if this becomes a significant problem, an extension could be written to allow a browser to have a unique set of cookies per page-domain? Such that a page loaded from www.youtube.com would look like a different user from the one who loads www.google.com.. of course, there would be tricks to get around that, such as tracking referrerals and such, but a privacy extension could handle that too.. I guess even 'Private Browsing' mode could be extended along these lines.. I don't think this war will ever end, and there will be many gains and losses along the way.
less talky more codey