They can get catrepellent etc for their garden, for the rest, tough titties for them:P
Why should I have to spend money to pollute my environment just to control YOUR pests?
Why should I have to put up with your cat shitting on my lawn, or spray on my doorstep? Or is it now okay for my dogs to shit on your lawn, and mark their territory on your doorstep?
It's easier for me to just call the city and have them give you a $300 fine, plus $25 day for boarding the cat (minimum 3 days while the rabies tests are done, paperwork processed, etc.,), plus the cost for test to make sure it doesn't have rabies.
Don't like it? As you said, "tough titties for you". Don't want to pay the fines? Get a leash.
Pets don't have the instincts to cope with an urban environment. Cars certainly aren't a part of their natural environment. Neither are snow blowers.
WRT your arguments about cats : "Which is better: keeping cats indoors their whole lives, except for periodic walks outdoors on leashes, and therefore keeping them safer but quite constrained; or allowing them to wander about outdoors as they wish, but with significantly more risk to their safety?" - try it with dogs, and it fails. Dogs' lives aren't constrained because their owners walk them on leashes - quite the contrary, it strengthens the bond between pet and owner. The only reason it's "different for cats" is the cultural assumption by lazy owners that "cats need to roam about", an assumption with no empirical basis.
No cat in the world can be kept on a leash. You don't keep them, they keep you.
Are you nuts? I've done it. So have plenty of other people. It's not that hard with cats that are kept indoors, provided they're already used to wearing a collar.
Or are you going to claim that you can't control an animal that's a small fraction of your weight and strength, and that you can't outsmart an animal that's got a small fraction of your brains? Look at how much bigger than us a horse is... and we still do it... and you can't even control a cat? Oh, right, you're from the "you don't keep them, they keep you" school of thought. I've heard of being pussy-whipped, but by a real pussy-cat? That's just sad.
Back in the late 1950s when I was a wee one in small-town Maine, we all -- kids and grown-ups alike -- snickered relentlessly at the lady who lived across Benton Avenue from my grandparents. Every afternoon she'd carry her massive tiger cat outside and connect a long cable to its harness, and the cat would spend the next several hours sunning herself, scratching at the maple tree and stalking birds.
This was at a time when people had mostly indoor-outdoor cats that roamed at will. Most of those cats had short lives, the result of unfortunate run-ins with cars, foxes, dogs and other cats. The neighbor lady's cat, on the other hand, lived nearly 20 active, sociable years. So much for our derision.
I thought about that old cat recently when on two separate occasions I saw women walking their cats through the park. Yup. Cats in harnesses on leashes strolling about the boulders and pine trees. Acting like it was the most normal thing in the world.
Turns out that in these times when most cat breeders, trainers and shelter personnel implore people to protect their cats by making them indoor-only pets, a few are recommending leash walks for felines as a way to stimulate them, keep them fit and allow them to connect with nature.
There's even a new self-published book, Walk Your Cat, The Complete Guide (Spiraka, $12.99), written by Steven Jacobson and Jean Miller, a married couple who have trained a handful of cats to prowl about confidently at the end of a leash.
"After a tough day," says Miller, a Virginia Tech philosophy instructor, "it's a nice, relaxing thing to come home, get the leash and take the cat out for a long walk."
Right.
Even she acknowledges that those words have an odd ring to them.
She hopes that in five or 10 years, though, cat owners the world over will be seen every evening de-stressing with cat walks. For the moment, however, as perhaps the nation's most vocal cat-walk advocate, she's "spending a lot of time trying to overcome the stigma."
The reasons leash walking for cats isn't already part of the American routine, she says, are twofold. First, most people think you can't train cats. More important, anyone who has ever tried to venture into kitty-stroll territory has probably been wildly unsuccessful. And that, Miller says, is "because they've used a dog model of leash training. That's certain to fail."
Miller and Jacobson have developed a step-by-step method that they say ensures success as long as the owner abides by the ever-so-important, can't-be-breached, No. 1 rule: You can't rush the process. It could take months to get a cat accustomed to the harness, confident with the process, no longer struggling against the leash, responsive to such words as "wait" and "no," and willing to return home when it's time.
The authors say that the command-and-control approach often used with dogs never works with cats (and
All that presupposes that the patent is actually granted. There are big holes in the story the company is trying to spin. For example, they claim that they've been developing this since 2006 - simply not possible, since Android wasn't released in 2006, but in November, 2007.
What they *might* have been doing was working on another idea that has since morphed, but then they have a serious problem - for example, their discussions with B&N could leave them liable to B&N claiming they they stole from B&N, and not the other way around, since it can be proven that what they're talking about now can't possibly be what they were proposing in 2006.
They're fucked. Maybe they've applied for a patent for that?:-)
You're right - they're desperate. Smartphones are totally killing the consumer stand-alone GPS market.
For the cattle, this would be a boon for the "get-a-chainsaw-and-cut-em-up" gangs.
Find cattle using the GPS signal;
Have one of the gang take the GPS transmitter and throw it on a passing train, wire it to the spare or an air hose on a a semi-trailer, toss it in someones' pickup truck bed, or just put it in a plastic bag and throw it in the river and letr it float away;
PROFIT: Rest of gang chainsaws Bossy knowing everyone's off on a wild goose chase
I'm not a pet owner, but I thought cats were _supposed_ to be let out on their own (at least that's what cat owners tell me), because otherwise they go crazy and tear up furniture or start eating the children..
So instead of tearing up the furniture, they go out and kill birds and squirrels, dig up gardens and shit on your tomatoes, spray cars and motorcycles and front porches (cat spray really stinks, and once they mark a place, they and other cats will keep coming back), spend their nights howling at each other and fighting, and getting pregnant and having more cats that nobody wants.
Both cats and dogs can be handled with a leash. Too many cat owners are too lazy. They get a cat because, compared to a dog, a cat is a lot less work. You don't have to walk it several times a day. You don't have to poop-and-scoop, just get a litter box. You can ignore it for weeks on end, as long as you put down food and water.
Pets are a responsibility, and they take work. The GPS is a panacea for people who want to be able to say "I care for my pet" without actually putting out the leg work.
Thanks. We wouldn't put a GPS on a 5-year-old kid and let them run loose in the streets, thinking "It's okay now, they have GPS!" GPS won't keep someone from putting your kitten in a plastic bag and smashing it repeatedly against a metal fence until its' back is broken (some sick f*** did that in Verdun 2 years ago). It won't stop them from pouring gasoline on it and setting it on fire. It won't stop them from torturing the cat and dumping it in a bag in the river.
Buster's Law was named after an 18-month-old tabby cat that had been doused with kerosene and burned to death by a Schenectady teen in 1997. Prior to this bill becoming law, animal cruelty resulted in misdemeanor penalties, if any charges were imposed at all.
Tedisco noted that since the 1997 arrest that inspired the creation of Buster's Law, the perpetrator who abused the cat has been imprisoned for various crimes, including attempted rape, sexual abuse and unlawful imprisonment of a 12-year-old girl.
"People who abuse animals are on a fast track to one day harming or killing people. It is critical that state government take every measure possible to halt such an escalating pattern of abuse," Tedisco stated.
FBI reports show that animal cruelty is an offense that often leads to other, more serious crimes against humans. According to the Humane Society of the United States, a 1997 survey of the largest shelters for battered women in the United States found that 85 percent of women and 63 percent of children entering shelters discussed incidents of pet abuse in their families. Notorious serial killers Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz and Jeffrey Dahmer all had histories of abusing animals.
A GPS doesn't keep animals away from harm - a leash does. Walking your pet also strengthens the bond between it and you. GPS won't do that, either.
Don't be silly. You posted some misinformation that directly relates to the borked US patent and court systems, in a thread that has to do with yet another patent troll trying to do a sploit. Why would you expect it to go unchallenged, especially since it's pretty much common knowledge to anyone who followed the case.
It's only because IIS 5 came off so badly in the study that Microsoft finally decided to do something and fix their problems. Even people who worked on it admit that IIS 5 was crap in comparison http://blogs.iis.net/bills/archive/2007/05/07/iis-vs-apache.aspx When you say "Security. If you're worried about IIS security vs. Apache, you're concerns are outdated.", you're acknowledging that the concerns were valid.
It backs up my point that market share does not necessarily correlate with vulnerability. Apache had twice the market share of IIS 5, and yet was much more secure.
As long as the middle name is not "bin", you should be ok. if you really want bin, you could use an equivalent from another language, as in "Osama von laden".
My parents were geeks and named me usr bin bash, you insensitive clod!
There's a huge difference between "patent-pending" and "we actually have an enforceable patent."
Just curious. What leads a person like you to spread inaccurate information with such fervor?
Just curious - why do you disagree with both me and the USPTO wrt the term "patent pending"?
Patents are like any other legal stuff. Just as anyone can sue anybody for anything, anyone can apply for a patent by filling in some forms and sending money.
"Patent pending" means you don't have a patent. Otherwise, you'd say "patented".
A patentee who makes or sells patented articles, or a person who does so for or under the patentee is required to mark the articles with the word "Patent" and the number of the patent. The penalty for failure to mark is that the patentee may not recover damages from an infringer unless the infringer was duly notified of the infringement and continued to infringe after the notice.
The marking of an article as patented when it is not in fact patented is against the law and subjects the offender to a penalty. Some persons mark articles sold with the terms "Patent Applied For" or "Patent Pending." These phrases have no legal effect, but only give information that an application for patent has been filed in the Patent and Trademark Office. The protection afforded by a patent does not start until the actual grant of the patent. False use of these phrases or their equivalent is prohibited.
What part of "no legal effect" do you fail to understand?
If you love your dog or cat, keep it on a leash outdoors. Being able to track it down when it's road kill, or frozen to death and chewed up by a snowblower, isn't being a good owner.
Just off the top of my head, my dogs and I have come across:
a small dog that was frozen to death against a fence; 2 days after, the kids who owned it asked me if I had seen it - I had to lie to them and say I hadn't;
lots of cats frozen to death in snowbanks, where they crawl to try to get out of the wind;
cats with their guts all over the place because passing cars ran over them;
stray dogs that are hungry and scared;
cats with their backs broken;
lots of "have you seen this cat" posters (there are 2 different ones up right now on a single street);
GPS doesn't "fix" any of this. Letting your pets wander around is no more "humane" than letting a toddler run around. Putting a cat on a leash is no less practical than putting a dog on a leash; the only difference is that, if both a cat and a dog are picked up by the pound, the cat is a lot more likely to be put down (here, half of all dogs put up for adoption find homes compared to only 10% of all cats).
Also, your neighbours aren't exactly thrilled with your cats running around, killing birds, digging up gardens and flowers, and howling at all hours of the night. Or your dogs running around chasing people.
Put a leash on it. It's cheaper than a GPS, and it can save your pets' life.
I think what will hang him having previously written and published a book on how to modify modems just like his and then use them for the illegal activity.
It is much more difficult to believe he wasn't selling them for the purpose of performing the illegal activity.
I never claimed that ISS or Apache were operating systems. You might want to brush up on your reading skills:-)
What I *did* claim was that the whole "there are more exploits because it's more popular" argument is simply not true - Apache serves much more traffic than IIS, and yet the study showed it was much less vulnerable, so the "more popular" argument isn't supported by evidence.
According to that argument, there should be more exploits the more popular instances of EVERY class of software, from operating systems to web browsers and servers to email clients. Apache vs. IIS disproved that, so we can fall back on the "Windows has more design problems" theory. Given that they still insist on maintaining backward compatibility (because they need to preserve their customer lock-in at any cost, including security), bad design flowing from that bad choice is more reasonable.
You can adjust mouse acceleration so that it's variable. Move it slowly, you get pixel-by-pixel accuracy. Move it quickly, and you cover a LOT more area. In other words, the same distance can translate into cursor movement of a dozen pixels or the whole screen, depending on how fast you move it.
That's funny - all the places I've worked the last decade, linux (and to a lesser extent bsd) have been either my primary, or only machines. We let the testers and marketing play with their Winshit boxes.
Tell me about it! It would stop a lot of the flame wars in the bud... but that would mean fewer page views, less advertising money, etc.
They don't even need to make it possible to change the original text - just append "update: " + new text, so people can't "game the system" by changing their original text and claiming "I never said that..."
I guess their perl script-fu isn't up to it... or they're too busy breaking the site again.
Look - YAF -(yet another fuckwit) who shoots their mouth off without even bothering to follow the links.
"... BTW, the maximum sentence for sexual assault [rapereliefshelter.bc.ca] when tried as a misdemeanor in Canada is $2,000 + 6 months...."
There is no misdemeanor sexual assault charge in Canada. You are referring to a Criminal Code (in the US, Felony) procedure by Summary Conviction. I could go on, but I'm done. You don't know what you're talking about, and you aren't on topic.
Did you even follow the link? It's to a CANADIAN RAPE CENTER. Their source: "after sexual assault...; Your guide to the criminal justice system, Department of Justice Canda, Ottawa, Ontario 1991:61-62"
So, are you going to say that the Canadian Department of Justice doesn't know what they're talking about? You're so full of shit.
Here's the actual text of the law: Section 271 of the Canadian Criminal Code - and it states that sexual assault can be either an indictible offense OR a misdemeanor.
Sexual assault
271. (1) Every one who commits a sexual assault is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
Sexual assault is a dual-mode or hybrid offense. It can be a felony or a misdemeanor. It's up to the prosecutor to decide how to proceed - I've posted links to the federal prosecutors' handbook elsewhere in this thread for those who want the gritty details.
Bullshit. Microsoft made the same claim when they made the switch from 16-bit to 32-bit - "Viruses will be a thing of the past."
They did ? Do you have a cite ?
All the promotional material for Window95. It may even have been on the install screens for Win95b. I remember that they also claimed (wrongfully) on the install screens that Window95 was "the fastest windows ever", even though it was slower than Windows 3.1 on the same hardware. Much slower.
It's still well below the posters' claim that viruses are impossible on 64-bit systems. That was just total foolishness, same as Microsofts' claim years ago that viruses could never work in a 32-bit protected-mode environment.
now I am so incredibly annoyed when I have to pick up a mouse that I can't figure out why people still use them
Maybe because some of us go "why don't I adjust the acceleration parameter", so we don't have to pick up the mouse...?
Microsoft trackballs go regularly for $250+ (because they don't make them anymore), there would not be that demand if there weren't cases that trackballs are great for.
Model Ts and Edsels go for more than their original cost. Doesn't mean you'd want to use one on a day-to-day basis.
The RIM thing was because the judge refused to allow a delay while the patent validity was decided, and RIM blinked. RIM was NOT, contrary to your assertion, fined "even after the fact that the patent had been rejected." RIM was never fined - they settled rather than proceed with the case, given that the judge wouldn't allow the delay.
If RIM had actually been fined, they could have had the judgment vacated.
The whole thing IS bogus, because they claim, in part that they started developing this in 2006; Android wasn't even released until 2007. All they had was a concept - not an "invention."
It's bogus, they have no case, and they know it. They're hoping to squeeze some money from BandN, and it's not going to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should I have to spend money to pollute my environment just to control YOUR pests?
Why should I have to put up with your cat shitting on my lawn, or spray on my doorstep? Or is it now okay for my dogs to shit on your lawn, and mark their territory on your doorstep?
It's easier for me to just call the city and have them give you a $300 fine, plus $25 day for boarding the cat (minimum 3 days while the rabies tests are done, paperwork processed, etc.,), plus the cost for test to make sure it doesn't have rabies.
Don't like it? As you said, "tough titties for you". Don't want to pay the fines? Get a leash.
WRT your arguments about cats : "Which is better: keeping cats indoors their whole lives, except for periodic walks outdoors on leashes, and therefore keeping them safer but quite constrained; or allowing them to wander about outdoors as they wish, but with significantly more risk to their safety?" - try it with dogs, and it fails. Dogs' lives aren't constrained because their owners walk them on leashes - quite the contrary, it strengthens the bond between pet and owner. The only reason it's "different for cats" is the cultural assumption by lazy owners that "cats need to roam about", an assumption with no empirical basis.
Are you nuts? I've done it. So have plenty of other people. It's not that hard with cats that are kept indoors, provided they're already used to wearing a collar.
Or are you going to claim that you can't control an animal that's a small fraction of your weight and strength, and that you can't outsmart an animal that's got a small fraction of your brains? Look at how much bigger than us a horse is ... and we still do it ... and you can't even control a cat? Oh, right, you're from the "you don't keep them, they keep you" school of thought. I've heard of being pussy-whipped, but by a real pussy-cat? That's just sad.
USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/pettalk/2009-02-24-cats-leash_N.htm " Cat on a leash: We'll walk you through it
Back in the late 1950s when I was a wee one in small-town Maine, we all -- kids and grown-ups alike -- snickered relentlessly at the lady who lived across Benton Avenue from my grandparents. Every afternoon she'd carry her massive tiger cat outside and connect a long cable to its harness, and the cat would spend the next several hours sunning herself, scratching at the maple tree and stalking birds.
This was at a time when people had mostly indoor-outdoor cats that roamed at will. Most of those cats had short lives, the result of unfortunate run-ins with cars, foxes, dogs and other cats. The neighbor lady's cat, on the other hand, lived nearly 20 active, sociable years. So much for our derision.
I thought about that old cat recently when on two separate occasions I saw women walking their cats through the park. Yup. Cats in harnesses on leashes strolling about the boulders and pine trees. Acting like it was the most normal thing in the world.
Turns out that in these times when most cat breeders, trainers and shelter personnel implore people to protect their cats by making them indoor-only pets, a few are recommending leash walks for felines as a way to stimulate them, keep them fit and allow them to connect with nature.
There's even a new self-published book, Walk Your Cat, The Complete Guide (Spiraka, $12.99), written by Steven Jacobson and Jean Miller, a married couple who have trained a handful of cats to prowl about confidently at the end of a leash.
"After a tough day," says Miller, a Virginia Tech philosophy instructor, "it's a nice, relaxing thing to come home, get the leash and take the cat out for a long walk."
Right.
Even she acknowledges that those words have an odd ring to them.
She hopes that in five or 10 years, though, cat owners the world over will be seen every evening de-stressing with cat walks. For the moment, however, as perhaps the nation's most vocal cat-walk advocate, she's "spending a lot of time trying to overcome the stigma."
The reasons leash walking for cats isn't already part of the American routine, she says, are twofold. First, most people think you can't train cats. More important, anyone who has ever tried to venture into kitty-stroll territory has probably been wildly unsuccessful. And that, Miller says, is "because they've used a dog model of leash training. That's certain to fail."
Miller and Jacobson have developed a step-by-step method that they say ensures success as long as the owner abides by the ever-so-important, can't-be-breached, No. 1 rule: You can't rush the process. It could take months to get a cat accustomed to the harness, confident with the process, no longer struggling against the leash, responsive to such words as "wait" and "no," and willing to return home when it's time.
The authors say that the command-and-control approach often used with dogs never works with cats (and
All that presupposes that the patent is actually granted. There are big holes in the story the company is trying to spin. For example, they claim that they've been developing this since 2006 - simply not possible, since Android wasn't released in 2006, but in November, 2007.
What they *might* have been doing was working on another idea that has since morphed, but then they have a serious problem - for example, their discussions with B&N could leave them liable to B&N claiming they they stole from B&N, and not the other way around, since it can be proven that what they're talking about now can't possibly be what they were proposing in 2006.
They're fucked. Maybe they've applied for a patent for that? :-)
You're right - they're desperate. Smartphones are totally killing the consumer stand-alone GPS market.
For the cattle, this would be a boon for the "get-a-chainsaw-and-cut-em-up" gangs.
I think you're proving my point.
So instead of tearing up the furniture, they go out and kill birds and squirrels, dig up gardens and shit on your tomatoes, spray cars and motorcycles and front porches (cat spray really stinks, and once they mark a place, they and other cats will keep coming back), spend their nights howling at each other and fighting, and getting pregnant and having more cats that nobody wants.
Both cats and dogs can be handled with a leash. Too many cat owners are too lazy. They get a cat because, compared to a dog, a cat is a lot less work. You don't have to walk it several times a day. You don't have to poop-and-scoop, just get a litter box. You can ignore it for weeks on end, as long as you put down food and water.
Pets are a responsibility, and they take work. The GPS is a panacea for people who want to be able to say "I care for my pet" without actually putting out the leg work.
Thanks. We wouldn't put a GPS on a 5-year-old kid and let them run loose in the streets, thinking "It's okay now, they have GPS!" GPS won't keep someone from putting your kitten in a plastic bag and smashing it repeatedly against a metal fence until its' back is broken (some sick f*** did that in Verdun 2 years ago). It won't stop them from pouring gasoline on it and setting it on fire. It won't stop them from torturing the cat and dumping it in a bag in the river.
There are a lot of sick people out there who delight in torturing animals - particularly cats.
A GPS doesn't keep animals away from harm - a leash does. Walking your pet also strengthens the bond between it and you. GPS won't do that, either.
Don't be silly. You posted some misinformation that directly relates to the borked US patent and court systems, in a thread that has to do with yet another patent troll trying to do a sploit. Why would you expect it to go unchallenged, especially since it's pretty much common knowledge to anyone who followed the case.
It's only because IIS 5 came off so badly in the study that Microsoft finally decided to do something and fix their problems. Even people who worked on it admit that IIS 5 was crap in comparison http://blogs.iis.net/bills/archive/2007/05/07/iis-vs-apache.aspx When you say "Security. If you're worried about IIS security vs. Apache, you're concerns are outdated.", you're acknowledging that the concerns were valid.
It backs up my point that market share does not necessarily correlate with vulnerability. Apache had twice the market share of IIS 5, and yet was much more secure.
My parents were geeks and named me usr bin bash, you insensitive clod!
Just curious - why do you disagree with both me and the USPTO wrt the term "patent pending"?
Patents are like any other legal stuff. Just as anyone can sue anybody for anything, anyone can apply for a patent by filling in some forms and sending money.
"Patent pending" means you don't have a patent. Otherwise, you'd say "patented".
Even the USPTO agrees that "patent pending" gives zero protection:
What part of "no legal effect" do you fail to understand?
If you love your dog or cat, keep it on a leash outdoors. Being able to track it down when it's road kill, or frozen to death and chewed up by a snowblower, isn't being a good owner.
Just off the top of my head, my dogs and I have come across:
GPS doesn't "fix" any of this. Letting your pets wander around is no more "humane" than letting a toddler run around. Putting a cat on a leash is no less practical than putting a dog on a leash; the only difference is that, if both a cat and a dog are picked up by the pound, the cat is a lot more likely to be put down (here, half of all dogs put up for adoption find homes compared to only 10% of all cats).
Also, your neighbours aren't exactly thrilled with your cats running around, killing birds, digging up gardens and flowers, and howling at all hours of the night. Or your dogs running around chasing people.
Put a leash on it. It's cheaper than a GPS, and it can save your pets' life.
That would do it, for sure.
I never claimed that ISS or Apache were operating systems. You might want to brush up on your reading skills :-)
What I *did* claim was that the whole "there are more exploits because it's more popular" argument is simply not true - Apache serves much more traffic than IIS, and yet the study showed it was much less vulnerable, so the "more popular" argument isn't supported by evidence.
According to that argument, there should be more exploits the more popular instances of EVERY class of software, from operating systems to web browsers and servers to email clients. Apache vs. IIS disproved that, so we can fall back on the "Windows has more design problems" theory. Given that they still insist on maintaining backward compatibility (because they need to preserve their customer lock-in at any cost, including security), bad design flowing from that bad choice is more reasonable.
You can adjust mouse acceleration so that it's variable. Move it slowly, you get pixel-by-pixel accuracy. Move it quickly, and you cover a LOT more area. In other words, the same distance can translate into cursor movement of a dozen pixels or the whole screen, depending on how fast you move it.
So, in your world, nobody clicks on attachments or links?
That's funny - all the places I've worked the last decade, linux (and to a lesser extent bsd) have been either my primary, or only machines. We let the testers and marketing play with their Winshit boxes.
Tell me about it! It would stop a lot of the flame wars in the bud ... but that would mean fewer page views, less advertising money, etc.
They don't even need to make it possible to change the original text - just append "update: " + new text, so people can't "game the system" by changing their original text and claiming "I never said that..."
I guess their perl script-fu isn't up to it ... or they're too busy breaking the site again.
Look - YAF -(yet another fuckwit) who shoots their mouth off without even bothering to follow the links.
Did you even follow the link? It's to a CANADIAN RAPE CENTER. Their source: "after sexual assault...; Your guide to the criminal justice system, Department of Justice Canda, Ottawa, Ontario 1991:61-62"
So, are you going to say that the Canadian Department of Justice doesn't know what they're talking about? You're so full of shit.
Here's the actual text of the law: Section 271 of the Canadian Criminal Code - and it states that sexual assault can be either an indictible offense OR a misdemeanor.
Sexual assault
271. (1) Every one who commits a sexual assault is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
Indictments == felonies. Summary convictions == misdemeanors.
Sexual assault is a dual-mode or hybrid offense. It can be a felony or a misdemeanor. It's up to the prosecutor to decide how to proceed - I've posted links to the federal prosecutors' handbook elsewhere in this thread for those who want the gritty details.
What an idiot.
All the promotional material for Window95. It may even have been on the install screens for Win95b. I remember that they also claimed (wrongfully) on the install screens that Window95 was "the fastest windows ever", even though it was slower than Windows 3.1 on the same hardware. Much slower.
It's still well below the posters' claim that viruses are impossible on 64-bit systems. That was just total foolishness, same as Microsofts' claim years ago that viruses could never work in a 32-bit protected-mode environment.
Maybe because some of us go "why don't I adjust the acceleration parameter", so we don't have to pick up the mouse ...?
Model Ts and Edsels go for more than their original cost. Doesn't mean you'd want to use one on a day-to-day basis.
Wouldn't it have been easier to just adjust the acceleration parameters?
The RIM thing was because the judge refused to allow a delay while the patent validity was decided, and RIM blinked. RIM was NOT, contrary to your assertion, fined "even after the fact that the patent had been rejected." RIM was never fined - they settled rather than proceed with the case, given that the judge wouldn't allow the delay.
If RIM had actually been fined, they could have had the judgment vacated.
The whole thing IS bogus, because they claim, in part that they started developing this in 2006; Android wasn't even released until 2007. All they had was a concept - not an "invention."
It's bogus, they have no case, and they know it. They're hoping to squeeze some money from BandN, and it's not going to happen.