That 1925 decision aside, the wording of many amendments makes this rather obvious, as well. Here is the text of the 13th, for exmaple:
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. "
That makes a blanket statement for *everyone* in the US, including states and private parties. Within in the US, no person can be a slave, for any reason, regardless of even direct contract. You cannot give that right up. The amendment makes the excemption so that a person can be punished by a court and forced to serve as a prison sentence, or community service.
Amendments that apply across everywhere the Federal has authority: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Amendments that directly mention power over states: 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26
So the Bill of Rights does explicity mention states in 10, and I think has always made it extremely clear "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people". That very much says that the Constitution and amendments are prohibiting the states from doing various things.
It doesn't surprise me at all that states would be willing to ignore the Constitution when it suited them. That's one of the reasons that we have always had Federal courts. As soon as the states gave all their power away to the Federal, it also started ignoring the Constitution when it was convenient.
Gitlow v. New York was a particularly big deal, because the 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law", and this case decided that it applied to the states, as well. This allowed the Federal to more directly apply the Constitution to matters of the states. You are right though, unfortunately, because before that decision, the states did try to weasel out of things that the Constitution directly restricts. Some things we never attempted until modern times, by any level of government (ie: ignorance or restrictions on 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th).
As the other poster points out, the state must send lawyers to argue the case, and Louisiana residents pay for that. However, as was not mentioned, Louisiana residents also help pay for the Federal judge and courthouse that the case is being heard in. It's amusing, in a sick way, that Louisiana helps finance having their laws thrown out, in this case.
The Constitution affects whatever body or bodies is stated in each section. Many sections are worded to effect all levels of government, such as the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, amendments. Some prevent or authorize the Federal specifically to do/not do something such as most of the original body of the document.
IOW, no, the Constitution says things that the Federal can and can't do, and things that the States can't do. Precedents do exist to enforce powers across all States through loopholes such as the commerce clause. Direct wording of the Constitution also exists to enforce powers across all States. Everything else shakes out under the 9th and 10th. You shouldn't be so overly bold with such statements, because as written, you are wrong.
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
A quick web search would've revealed that MS required vendor fields for authorization. They did not document these fields initially, so you would've had to reverse engineer their implementation. Eventually, MS published most of the details, but did so under a very restrictive license that didn't allow a "competitor" to use them. That means you still would have to reverse engineer those fields.
You can authenticate without the undefined extension, but cannot be authorized to specific resources offered by Windows machines. So it isn't hard for you to authorize *to* a MS Kerberos implementation, but you cannot authorize Windows against anyone else's implementation. You're missing group membership information and the NT ID without using the proprietary MS extensions.
This is a company that choose to ignore the Kerberos V5 spec, which was altered specifically to help them, they lied to the Kerberos developers about following the spec, lied about splitting authorization functionality, and lied about a non-NT version of the domain controller services. They attempted to undermine all existing Kerberos installations by breaking compatibility, and requiring people to run the MS version of the Kerberos protocol to have it work properly with Windows.
IOW, standard procedure for MS: they took the established Kerberos spec, added proprietary extensions to it, and made it not work properly without using those extensions, while ensuring that those extensions are only available under Windows with MS software.
Your cost estimate is wrong, I'm hoping? My gasoline V6 costs about 10 cents per mile to run, and has a 400 mile range. An electric car should *not* be more expensive to run than a gasoline car, at least it shouldn't if you ever want to sell them.
You will very likely care about the signed driver requirement (this allows their DRM to actually work). If MS and company get their way, you'll certainly care about secure audio path, since it will make FLAC nearly pointless (you'll have to snag an analog loopback copy). If they get their way completely, it will be encrypted all the way to the speaker. That makes it much more annoying, though still rather trivial, to get the audio.
Once the DRM is there, you're already screwed when you decide to start caring.
We *have* bitched at the content makers. Then we started ignoring the content makers, and then the content makers started to sue thousands of random people. The whole while, the typical person on the street continued to practice the complete inability to see the world around them. You fight wherever the battle is, and in this case, it's in a Windows OS.
New hardware playback systems are rapidly becoming computing devices. People want to be able to watch their movie on their laptop, or use their projection system, or their fancy new media center. This is ESPECIALLY true in the early-adopter stages.
FWIW, the piracy actually occurs in direct duplication of media. All of this ridiculous DRM does *nothing* to prevent that. It's just a ploy to take even more control away from the customer.
Also, considering that these content producers have already stated that they will not be using HDMI for at least the next four years, MS needs to implement it? It would be literally years before that difference between OSX and Windows mattered. Besides that, people end up with Windows machines because they have half the price of Apple machines. Why is something that nobody is using going to make people want to double their costs? People aren't going to jump to Apple so that they can watch Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, but not use any of their software, nor over half of their peripherals.
So, what you're saying is that despite most current hardware not supporting HDMI, despite no current hardware support secure audio path, despite zero customer desire to have DRM, we all have to accept it anyway? That's BS.
Just a though, but most of the multiplier locked chips that I've seen would drop you down to a lower clock speed. My Athlon 2600+ drops down and is IDed as an 1800 if I mess with the multiplier, for example. It's worth a shot!
Signing the "agreement" is voluntary, however, a public school is a part of the government. The Constitution and Bill of Rights, *may not* be violated by the government. You cannot sign away those rights, even if you want to. A public school policy governing what you can and cannot say, in or out of school, is unconstitutional, and hence, illegal. People are just so used to the government telling them what is right and wrong, that they don't bother finding out the truth for themselves.
Your linked article is an organization that is specifically trying to skew numbers in favor of NYC getting additional state money.
NYS has a population of 18.98 million people, while NYC has a population of 8.10 million. For property tax, $21.67 billion comes from outside NYC out of a total of $31.50 billion, for example. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find an authoritative source to support either your or my own statements about income tax. I wasn't even able to find a decent salary distribution for NYC vs. the rest of the state.
By the population numbers, NYC *should* be getting less than 50% of the resident income tax back in state aid. Please let me know if you find anything that definitely shows either way.
NYC uses the tax money that the employer pays in order to cover those services. The employee that is working in another state should pay that state the income. If you live in NY, and earn income in NJ, you pay NJ. Well, if I live in NJ, and telecommute to NY, I'm *working* in NJ, and pay NJ.
Put another way, when you drive from NJ to, say, Maryland... do you pay Delaware and Maryland taxes for the trip? You are gaining benefit from their roads, fire services, police, court systems, public works departments, etc. Of course you don't, because you don't earn income in those states, so they don't get to tax it. The gas stations, restaurants, hotels, etc, in those states pay taxes based on what you've paid to those businesses. That covers the government costs.
Excuse me? Around 50% of the taxes that a NY, but not NYC, resident pays to the State *GOES TO NYC*. You seem to have this equation a bit backwards.
Now, of course you don't see anything back from the Fed. Their current purpose is to consume as much as possible for as little work as possible. You pay much more than double your State taxes to the Feds. In that regard, of *course* you pay a lot more than you get; you pay most of that to the Fed.
Perhaps they think the taxes are reasonable in the big upstate cities, but the people everywhere else aren't too happy. NYC's existence screws a lot of people upstate out of land (for reservoirs and their "protective" legislation), the city types that move north take the City with them, rapidly driving up taxes in those areas, and forcing the locals to move further away from NYC. Most of the state paid 50% of their taxes to NYC, Albany, and Buffalo for the last 30 years, and lost more and more of their communities for the trouble. The taxes drove large chunks of companies, like IBM, out of the state.
Look to the majority of NY State, rather than just the few large cities. Most upstate people don't *want* to live in or near cities, much less to pay for those that do.
I don't want to get into a discussion on the quality of Google products; we all have differing opinions on that one.
Of course it's fine to rationally design software, or, in this case, rationally block illegal things. The *problem* is when it looks like you did this because of something like a lawsuit. It makes it look like all anyone has to do is sue you to get their way.
In the context of terrorists, no, the US, at least, really doesn't negotiate with them. Not even before Bush's everyone-is-a-terrorist days. That was why the US didn't have a constant stream of hijacking, bombings, etc. It didn't get a terrorist anywhere, because the US Federal gov would rather mount an urban strike to try a hostage rescue than entertain demands. While many other countries were fairly regular terrorist problems, the US did not. It really does depend on exactly what *you* mean by a criminal.
The 7.1 version of AVG Network also includes a software firewall. You would qualify for discount pricing, as a non-profit. I just paid around 600$US to get 75 two year licenses, for example.
People have pointed out that porn doesn't occur in the suggestions. As I said, it was very likely that it was hard coded into the application.
If Google allows this company to supply a list of excluded keywords, then *every* company will do the same. It's the same principle as not negotiating with terrorists. To do so encourages many others to follow suit so that they get their way.
I can think of reasons: if you make software that attempts to prevent cracking or simple key generation, you probably will use the words "crack" and "keygen" in your literature, if you attempt to break software to verify level of protection, etc. If Google were to put such a filter in place, they now have to examine each search result, and attempt to determine if the instance is talking about breaking software, protecting software, or illegally using software.
They very likely *can't* do that with the product they have today. It is a technically possible solution that Google could impliment, but not one that they are capable of today.
In regards to the pornography, Google probably determined that porn showed up far too often when searching for something unrelated. They likely hardcoded the application to avoid displaying those hits.
The only advantage that the mobile phone will have over a laptop is size/weight; the laptop is better in every other way. A laptop has a useable display, keyboard, pointing device, networking, battery, audio/speakers, and storage built in.
Mobile phones have a video decoder than can drive a low refresh rate, very small, low resolution LCD; they won't drive 1600x1200 @ 85Hz. You were better off with the cradle idea, but then you're really just using the phone as a small portable storage device.
Cell phones aren't really useful PDAs for the same reason that a PDA isn't a decent workstation: human interfaces. In both cases, the input is cludgy and the screen is too small. What you're asking is for everyone to take a few huge steps back in computing, just to have a cell phone/PDA/PC/microwave oven/TV/fold out bed combo unit the size of a postage stamp. People really just don't want that.
Coming up with the next big thing is a very good idea, but the mobile phone as a computer isn't it. Use the right tool for the job!
That would be the bus that allows for video, audio, network, keyboard, mouse, printing, and storage. The one that means you need to have all the components of a PC, except for the processor and memory. So, since you have every storage and interface device as an accessory, what was the point of having the phone be the "computer"? I can only assume it's because you want to use it as a 400$ flash drive, on a set of peripherals that would likely cost more than buying a desktop machine or a laptop. Of course, for there to really be a point to this, you would need to have *multiple* of these PC-clone docking stations, in different locations.
Mobile phones have a hard time making phone calls anymore, and it's because of feature creep.
The racial connection was that people believed the Mexicans were a problem, because of their willingness to work for cheap. It wasn't until the 1930's that people started to connect it to black people, and then it was a result of "mexican influence".
They Federal started a baby agency for drug enforcement, and the guy in charge of it saw it as a career opportunity, and set out to make it big. Later in the 1930's, a guy by the name of Hearst, who was huge in timber and owned a large newpaper chain, latched onto the idea of banning marijuana (and all hash). He put a lot of outright lies in his papers to support the ban, but his real reasons were being pissed at Mexico, and wanting to insure that hemp paper wouldn't happen.
With heavy funding and "research" from a few pharmacutical companies, they managed to lobby for a huge tax on marijuana, and then as a result of the outright lies from the falsified stories in the various newpapers (as a result of Hearst and his paper manufacturing investments), hemp was made illegal at the Federal level. The pharmas were concerned about their inability to profit from something anyone could grow, and they hadn't figured out how marijuana did what it did, so they decided it was best for their industry if nobody had it.
So you see, it was COMPLETELY about the paper industry, both manufacturing and printing, that the drug was made illegal.
Marijuana being illegal has *absolutely nothing* to do with racial use. Pot was banned largely because of political pressure from the paper industry. The excuse was that it was a dangerous drug. It has nothing to do with being racing against black people.
You seem to have forgotten that around the time that marijuana was banned in the US, alcohol was also made illegal. Marijuana is *still* banned because of the "tyranny of the majority", in that the majority doesn't want to get its head out of its ass. You can see this phenomenon occur on just about every other issue.
BTW - a little pot info for you. The plant is from Asia, in the vicinity of India. Not exactly of African origin. South America is currently the largest producer, which is also not Africa. You used a racial stereotype to say that black people consume it more than other groups. The real reason is that it is the cheapest illegal drug, which makes it most common in poor areas; these areas tend to have a disproportionately large black population.
The concept of the panopticon is not new; Jeremy Bentham published it in 1791. However, the original purpose of designing the system was for a PRISON. George Orwell used the concept as a basis for Big Brother. England has revived it to destroy society for some short-lived power.
People don't expect privacy in public. They do, however, expect to not be stalked, recorded, and studied just because they are in public. They don't expect people watching them pick their nose, or adjusting their crotch, or knowing which stores they've gone into. They don't want people to be able to watch TV and tell when they've left their home, or whether they decided to drive, or what they were wearing.
All this push for a government sanctioned life, recorded by the government, will only result in the actually wise and intelligent people avoiding all the places that they do this. People will go out of their way to develop ways to foil the cameras, simply to go about their life withing being spied upon.
First, the vast majority of people do not have HDTVs, nor will they in the next five years. Second, the vast majority of people do not stream their TV; they get it from satellite or cable.
The idea of doing an individual stream for each TV for each station is *IDIOTIC*. You would honestly have to be stupid to do that. If some VC was silly enough to give you money for that, your business would go under anyway.
TV over the Internet works for either small numbers of users or if you run it multicast. ISPs do not want to deal with multicast, and neither do most other people, as nifty as the concept is.
So in short, it will cost about $45 a month to stream HD TV to all the TVs in the average house. Coincidentally, this is the same price as for a cable or satellite TV hookup.
No, it sounds more like you have your head rammed too far up the rear-end of Java to see things more objectively.
The supposed point of "Java was write once, run everywhere". Without it being open source, it's "write once, run only where Sun feels like it". That's why it doesn't work on Linux x86-64 native, Linux/BSD on non-x86 systems, OpenBSD on any system, etc. Sun promised to open source it, or at least release control of it, when they came out with Java; they lied. That lie helped to get the ball rolling for Sun. So *YES*, it really does matter, and it can make it very annoying to deal with Java.
Agreed on the PHP. You can already run it as nobody, and it's interpreted. There doesn't seem to be a point to this.
Open source would make Java more appealing, but not running PHP through it, as explained above.
YES, it would certainly help improve Java. It could be ported to platforms that Sun hasn't bothered with, the non-server performance could be substantially improved, and alternative implementations may finally be complete. Plus, it could be included in distributions that won't ship non-free software.
YES, Java can be slow. When you're running Java servlets, you only instantiate the VM one time. When running applications, you create a new one for each app. This wastes quite a bit of memory, and makes things slower, especially when the app is first launched. Java UIs also tend to be horribly slow.
I *hate* when I have to launch a Java application for something. I actually cringe at the thought. The app ignores my native widgets, styles, colors, fonts, etc, etc. I might as well be running the app on another machine through VNC. Drag and drop doesn't work right, cut and paste doesn't work right, and the UI is slow.
Slashdot Mirror
That 1925 decision aside, the wording of many amendments makes this rather obvious, as well. Here is the text of the 13th, for exmaple:
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. "
That makes a blanket statement for *everyone* in the US, including states and private parties. Within in the US, no person can be a slave, for any reason, regardless of even direct contract. You cannot give that right up. The amendment makes the excemption so that a person can be punished by a court and forced to serve as a prison sentence, or community service.
Amendments that apply across everywhere the Federal has authority: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Amendments that directly mention power over states: 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26
So the Bill of Rights does explicity mention states in 10, and I think has always made it extremely clear "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people". That very much says that the Constitution and amendments are prohibiting the states from doing various things.
It doesn't surprise me at all that states would be willing to ignore the Constitution when it suited them. That's one of the reasons that we have always had Federal courts. As soon as the states gave all their power away to the Federal, it also started ignoring the Constitution when it was convenient.
Gitlow v. New York was a particularly big deal, because the 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law", and this case decided that it applied to the states, as well. This allowed the Federal to more directly apply the Constitution to matters of the states. You are right though, unfortunately, because before that decision, the states did try to weasel out of things that the Constitution directly restricts. Some things we never attempted until modern times, by any level of government (ie: ignorance or restrictions on 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th).
As the other poster points out, the state must send lawyers to argue the case, and Louisiana residents pay for that. However, as was not mentioned, Louisiana residents also help pay for the Federal judge and courthouse that the case is being heard in. It's amusing, in a sick way, that Louisiana helps finance having their laws thrown out, in this case.
The Constitution affects whatever body or bodies is stated in each section. Many sections are worded to effect all levels of government, such as the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, amendments. Some prevent or authorize the Federal specifically to do/not do something such as most of the original body of the document.
IOW, no, the Constitution says things that the Federal can and can't do, and things that the States can't do. Precedents do exist to enforce powers across all States through loopholes such as the commerce clause. Direct wording of the Constitution also exists to enforce powers across all States. Everything else shakes out under the 9th and 10th. You shouldn't be so overly bold with such statements, because as written, you are wrong.
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
A quick web search would've revealed that MS required vendor fields for authorization. They did not document these fields initially, so you would've had to reverse engineer their implementation. Eventually, MS published most of the details, but did so under a very restrictive license that didn't allow a "competitor" to use them. That means you still would have to reverse engineer those fields.
You can authenticate without the undefined extension, but cannot be authorized to specific resources offered by Windows machines. So it isn't hard for you to authorize *to* a MS Kerberos implementation, but you cannot authorize Windows against anyone else's implementation. You're missing group membership information and the NT ID without using the proprietary MS extensions.
This is a company that choose to ignore the Kerberos V5 spec, which was altered specifically to help them, they lied to the Kerberos developers about following the spec, lied about splitting authorization functionality, and lied about a non-NT version of the domain controller services. They attempted to undermine all existing Kerberos installations by breaking compatibility, and requiring people to run the MS version of the Kerberos protocol to have it work properly with Windows.
IOW, standard procedure for MS: they took the established Kerberos spec, added proprietary extensions to it, and made it not work properly without using those extensions, while ensuring that those extensions are only available under Windows with MS software.
Your cost estimate is wrong, I'm hoping? My gasoline V6 costs about 10 cents per mile to run, and has a 400 mile range. An electric car should *not* be more expensive to run than a gasoline car, at least it shouldn't if you ever want to sell them.
You will very likely care about the signed driver requirement (this allows their DRM to actually work). If MS and company get their way, you'll certainly care about secure audio path, since it will make FLAC nearly pointless (you'll have to snag an analog loopback copy). If they get their way completely, it will be encrypted all the way to the speaker. That makes it much more annoying, though still rather trivial, to get the audio.
Once the DRM is there, you're already screwed when you decide to start caring.
We *have* bitched at the content makers. Then we started ignoring the content makers, and then the content makers started to sue thousands of random people. The whole while, the typical person on the street continued to practice the complete inability to see the world around them. You fight wherever the battle is, and in this case, it's in a Windows OS.
New hardware playback systems are rapidly becoming computing devices. People want to be able to watch their movie on their laptop, or use their projection system, or their fancy new media center. This is ESPECIALLY true in the early-adopter stages.
FWIW, the piracy actually occurs in direct duplication of media. All of this ridiculous DRM does *nothing* to prevent that. It's just a ploy to take even more control away from the customer.
Also, considering that these content producers have already stated that they will not be using HDMI for at least the next four years, MS needs to implement it? It would be literally years before that difference between OSX and Windows mattered. Besides that, people end up with Windows machines because they have half the price of Apple machines. Why is something that nobody is using going to make people want to double their costs? People aren't going to jump to Apple so that they can watch Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, but not use any of their software, nor over half of their peripherals.
So, what you're saying is that despite most current hardware not supporting HDMI, despite no current hardware support secure audio path, despite zero customer desire to have DRM, we all have to accept it anyway? That's BS.
Signed driver requirement, secure audio path, HDMI, new Windows Media DRM, new formats (with more DRM), just to name a few.
Just a though, but most of the multiplier locked chips that I've seen would drop you down to a lower clock speed. My Athlon 2600+ drops down and is IDed as an 1800 if I mess with the multiplier, for example. It's worth a shot!
Signing the "agreement" is voluntary, however, a public school is a part of the government. The Constitution and Bill of Rights, *may not* be violated by the government. You cannot sign away those rights, even if you want to. A public school policy governing what you can and cannot say, in or out of school, is unconstitutional, and hence, illegal. People are just so used to the government telling them what is right and wrong, that they don't bother finding out the truth for themselves.
Your linked article is an organization that is specifically trying to skew numbers in favor of NYC getting additional state money.
NYS has a population of 18.98 million people, while NYC has a population of 8.10 million. For property tax, $21.67 billion comes from outside NYC out of a total of $31.50 billion, for example. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find an authoritative source to support either your or my own statements about income tax. I wasn't even able to find a decent salary distribution for NYC vs. the rest of the state.
By the population numbers, NYC *should* be getting less than 50% of the resident income tax back in state aid. Please let me know if you find anything that definitely shows either way.
NYC uses the tax money that the employer pays in order to cover those services. The employee that is working in another state should pay that state the income. If you live in NY, and earn income in NJ, you pay NJ. Well, if I live in NJ, and telecommute to NY, I'm *working* in NJ, and pay NJ.
Put another way, when you drive from NJ to, say, Maryland... do you pay Delaware and Maryland taxes for the trip? You are gaining benefit from their roads, fire services, police, court systems, public works departments, etc. Of course you don't, because you don't earn income in those states, so they don't get to tax it. The gas stations, restaurants, hotels, etc, in those states pay taxes based on what you've paid to those businesses. That covers the government costs.
Excuse me? Around 50% of the taxes that a NY, but not NYC, resident pays to the State *GOES TO NYC*. You seem to have this equation a bit backwards.
Now, of course you don't see anything back from the Fed. Their current purpose is to consume as much as possible for as little work as possible. You pay much more than double your State taxes to the Feds. In that regard, of *course* you pay a lot more than you get; you pay most of that to the Fed.
Perhaps they think the taxes are reasonable in the big upstate cities, but the people everywhere else aren't too happy. NYC's existence screws a lot of people upstate out of land (for reservoirs and their "protective" legislation), the city types that move north take the City with them, rapidly driving up taxes in those areas, and forcing the locals to move further away from NYC. Most of the state paid 50% of their taxes to NYC, Albany, and Buffalo for the last 30 years, and lost more and more of their communities for the trouble. The taxes drove large chunks of companies, like IBM, out of the state.
Look to the majority of NY State, rather than just the few large cities. Most upstate people don't *want* to live in or near cities, much less to pay for those that do.
I don't want to get into a discussion on the quality of Google products; we all have differing opinions on that one.
Of course it's fine to rationally design software, or, in this case, rationally block illegal things. The *problem* is when it looks like you did this because of something like a lawsuit. It makes it look like all anyone has to do is sue you to get their way.
In the context of terrorists, no, the US, at least, really doesn't negotiate with them. Not even before Bush's everyone-is-a-terrorist days. That was why the US didn't have a constant stream of hijacking, bombings, etc. It didn't get a terrorist anywhere, because the US Federal gov would rather mount an urban strike to try a hostage rescue than entertain demands. While many other countries were fairly regular terrorist problems, the US did not. It really does depend on exactly what *you* mean by a criminal.
The 7.1 version of AVG Network also includes a software firewall. You would qualify for discount pricing, as a non-profit. I just paid around 600$US to get 75 two year licenses, for example.
People have pointed out that porn doesn't occur in the suggestions. As I said, it was very likely that it was hard coded into the application.
If Google allows this company to supply a list of excluded keywords, then *every* company will do the same. It's the same principle as not negotiating with terrorists. To do so encourages many others to follow suit so that they get their way.
I can think of reasons: if you make software that attempts to prevent cracking or simple key generation, you probably will use the words "crack" and "keygen" in your literature, if you attempt to break software to verify level of protection, etc. If Google were to put such a filter in place, they now have to examine each search result, and attempt to determine if the instance is talking about breaking software, protecting software, or illegally using software.
They very likely *can't* do that with the product they have today. It is a technically possible solution that Google could impliment, but not one that they are capable of today.
In regards to the pornography, Google probably determined that porn showed up far too often when searching for something unrelated. They likely hardcoded the application to avoid displaying those hits.
The only advantage that the mobile phone will have over a laptop is size/weight; the laptop is better in every other way. A laptop has a useable display, keyboard, pointing device, networking, battery, audio/speakers, and storage built in.
Mobile phones have a video decoder than can drive a low refresh rate, very small, low resolution LCD; they won't drive 1600x1200 @ 85Hz. You were better off with the cradle idea, but then you're really just using the phone as a small portable storage device.
Cell phones aren't really useful PDAs for the same reason that a PDA isn't a decent workstation: human interfaces. In both cases, the input is cludgy and the screen is too small. What you're asking is for everyone to take a few huge steps back in computing, just to have a cell phone/PDA/PC/microwave oven/TV/fold out bed combo unit the size of a postage stamp. People really just don't want that.
Coming up with the next big thing is a very good idea, but the mobile phone as a computer isn't it. Use the right tool for the job!
That would be the bus that allows for video, audio, network, keyboard, mouse, printing, and storage. The one that means you need to have all the components of a PC, except for the processor and memory. So, since you have every storage and interface device as an accessory, what was the point of having the phone be the "computer"? I can only assume it's because you want to use it as a 400$ flash drive, on a set of peripherals that would likely cost more than buying a desktop machine or a laptop. Of course, for there to really be a point to this, you would need to have *multiple* of these PC-clone docking stations, in different locations.
Mobile phones have a hard time making phone calls anymore, and it's because of feature creep.
The racial connection was that people believed the Mexicans were a problem, because of their willingness to work for cheap. It wasn't until the 1930's that people started to connect it to black people, and then it was a result of "mexican influence".
They Federal started a baby agency for drug enforcement, and the guy in charge of it saw it as a career opportunity, and set out to make it big. Later in the 1930's, a guy by the name of Hearst, who was huge in timber and owned a large newpaper chain, latched onto the idea of banning marijuana (and all hash). He put a lot of outright lies in his papers to support the ban, but his real reasons were being pissed at Mexico, and wanting to insure that hemp paper wouldn't happen.
With heavy funding and "research" from a few pharmacutical companies, they managed to lobby for a huge tax on marijuana, and then as a result of the outright lies from the falsified stories in the various newpapers (as a result of Hearst and his paper manufacturing investments), hemp was made illegal at the Federal level. The pharmas were concerned about their inability to profit from something anyone could grow, and they hadn't figured out how marijuana did what it did, so they decided it was best for their industry if nobody had it.
So you see, it was COMPLETELY about the paper industry, both manufacturing and printing, that the drug was made illegal.
Marijuana being illegal has *absolutely nothing* to do with racial use. Pot was banned largely because of political pressure from the paper industry. The excuse was that it was a dangerous drug. It has nothing to do with being racing against black people.
You seem to have forgotten that around the time that marijuana was banned in the US, alcohol was also made illegal. Marijuana is *still* banned because of the "tyranny of the majority", in that the majority doesn't want to get its head out of its ass. You can see this phenomenon occur on just about every other issue.
BTW - a little pot info for you. The plant is from Asia, in the vicinity of India. Not exactly of African origin. South America is currently the largest producer, which is also not Africa. You used a racial stereotype to say that black people consume it more than other groups. The real reason is that it is the cheapest illegal drug, which makes it most common in poor areas; these areas tend to have a disproportionately large black population.
The concept of the panopticon is not new; Jeremy Bentham published it in 1791. However, the original purpose of designing the system was for a PRISON. George Orwell used the concept as a basis for Big Brother. England has revived it to destroy society for some short-lived power.
People don't expect privacy in public. They do, however, expect to not be stalked, recorded, and studied just because they are in public. They don't expect people watching them pick their nose, or adjusting their crotch, or knowing which stores they've gone into. They don't want people to be able to watch TV and tell when they've left their home, or whether they decided to drive, or what they were wearing.
All this push for a government sanctioned life, recorded by the government, will only result in the actually wise and intelligent people avoiding all the places that they do this. People will go out of their way to develop ways to foil the cameras, simply to go about their life withing being spied upon.
First, the vast majority of people do not have HDTVs, nor will they in the next five years. Second, the vast majority of people do not stream their TV; they get it from satellite or cable.
The idea of doing an individual stream for each TV for each station is *IDIOTIC*. You would honestly have to be stupid to do that. If some VC was silly enough to give you money for that, your business would go under anyway.
TV over the Internet works for either small numbers of users or if you run it multicast. ISPs do not want to deal with multicast, and neither do most other people, as nifty as the concept is.
So in short, it will cost about $45 a month to stream HD TV to all the TVs in the average house. Coincidentally, this is the same price as for a cable or satellite TV hookup.
No, it sounds more like you have your head rammed too far up the rear-end of Java to see things more objectively.
The supposed point of "Java was write once, run everywhere". Without it being open source, it's "write once, run only where Sun feels like it". That's why it doesn't work on Linux x86-64 native, Linux/BSD on non-x86 systems, OpenBSD on any system, etc. Sun promised to open source it, or at least release control of it, when they came out with Java; they lied. That lie helped to get the ball rolling for Sun. So *YES*, it really does matter, and it can make it very annoying to deal with Java.
Agreed on the PHP. You can already run it as nobody, and it's interpreted. There doesn't seem to be a point to this.
Open source would make Java more appealing, but not running PHP through it, as explained above.
YES, it would certainly help improve Java. It could be ported to platforms that Sun hasn't bothered with, the non-server performance could be substantially improved, and alternative implementations may finally be complete. Plus, it could be included in distributions that won't ship non-free software.
YES, Java can be slow. When you're running Java servlets, you only instantiate the VM one time. When running applications, you create a new one for each app. This wastes quite a bit of memory, and makes things slower, especially when the app is first launched. Java UIs also tend to be horribly slow.
I *hate* when I have to launch a Java application for something. I actually cringe at the thought. The app ignores my native widgets, styles, colors, fonts, etc, etc. I might as well be running the app on another machine through VNC. Drag and drop doesn't work right, cut and paste doesn't work right, and the UI is slow.