Actually, CA courts ruled that the state has an interest in protecting business interests within the state. If my understanding of the Wikipedia summary of non-compete clauses is correct, being that the individual in question, as well as his destination is in CA, CA court could claim jurisdiction.
U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 states No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. The Full Faith and Credit clause (Article IV, Section 1) could apply, but I don't know enough case law to know how it could be effectively applied in IBM's favor--it seems that the courts favor the less restrictive state when using it.
Send them certification books, i.e. Network+, A+, Security+ study books, as well as theoretical computer science books. These materials rarely require access to an actual computer.
If it's "computer repair" books that they really want, Mueller's Upgrading and Repairing PCs is one of the best books. I've not used it in a long while, but I think it's not as much hands-on stuff. I know it covers a ton.
I was talking to a friend at work about this. We basically felt the same way--Microsoft will eventually either have to cut significant costs so that it can afford to sell Windows for $10-25 per copy (even if it's a reduced version for netbooks) or move to a Software as a Service (SaaS) model. Microsoft could charge $10 to OEMs (maybe $50 retail) upfront, then require a subscription to get updates other than security updates. It could move to a "new big feature" once or twice a year that only subscribers can get.
It's a little farfetched, I know, but it seems the way to go these days. I'd rather pay $50 upfront and then $10 per month for four years than pay $400 upfront at retail. On a netbook, I think it wouldn't be unreasonable for Microsoft to offer something like Box.net on-line storage/backup as part of the subscription, too, especially for netbooks, which, like phones, are more prone to being lost/stolen than larger laptops and desktops.
Too bad CT won't do it in time to put Bob Barr on the ballot, since the state and court claimed that it would take too long to reprint paper ballots and reprogram electronic voting machines with his name, even though he met all requirements on time.
How can it be guaranteed that your mailed absentee ballot would be
Received?
Registered?
Acknowledged?
Counted?
I suppose that you could document every step of the way to show that you sent it (even as much as video recording marking, signing, delivering, and the post office accepting the ballot), but there is no way--at least one that I know--to verify that your ballot was processed and counted.
I'm worried about this, too. Granted, I have WiFi available at every location I frequent (home, work, girlfriends', etc.) so I can use T-Mobile's T-Mobile@Home thing.
However, out in the sticks, where my parents' live, there's almost no coverage on their map. I don't know if AT&T has 3G coverage out there, but I'm 90% sure that it has 3G coverage in Pittsburgh proper.
He might be like Don Knuth and have a secretary read all his email and print out the ones to which he should reply, pen his reply, then give it back to the secretary to type and send.
This man, however, takes that a step further, and perhaps has his secretary print out every/. story and comment so that he can choose which to reply to.
Apple has always been a step ahead of the industryâ"anyone remember when the original iMac debuted, and companies suddenly got off their duff and started making USB peripherals? Or the cries of suffering when it launched with OMG NO FLOPPY? Users may find it frustrating, but FW400 is going to that great technology dustbin in the sky.
It's not a matter of speed, it's a matter of paired hardware support. DV Cameras have Firewire out and that's the standard when it comes to DV capture. USB2.0 could arguably handle it, but the DV market chose Firewire. This, obviously, makes the new Macbooks useless for folks who rely on Firewire devices and who have a hardware investment in Firewire devices.
I agree that this is a poor decision, but perhaps Apple made an executive design somewhere along the line, expecting users who really need Firewire to spring for the MBP instead.
I meant to say that I would exclude duplicates. Since this is all theoretical anyway, I don't feel the need to prove how I would do that. I should have said "barring duplicates" or "excluding duplicates" instead of "with no duplicates." Mea culpa.
There can't be a biased sample if I'm working with the population. I have no intention of working with just a sample. If they say that fewer than 0.002% of the population cares, and I show that 0.002% of the population plus one persondoes care, I've proved them wrong.
Your third point is indeed correct, but is essentially addressed within it. These sites are could be taken as just an example of the places that this poll could be spread. A simple "and etc." in my list addresses that point. I'd rather work with the world population since the EA rep didn't specify "US gamers". I included the US figures as a subset in the event EA meant "US gamers".
Population as of 16:26 GMT (EST+5) Oct 15, 2008 according to census.gov
U.S. 305,418,292
World 6,730,303,140
Assuming everyone in the world is a gamer, it would take 13,460,606 people worldwide speaking out against this to prove that statistic to be incorrect.
Assuming the same for the U.S., it would take 610,836 people speaking out against DRM to prove that incorrectly.
I'm sure that a significantly powered site spread to Slashdot, Digg, Reddit, Stumbleupon, and Facebook would probably demonstrate 610,836 people against DRM with no duplicates.
It would be even easier if we assumed that only 50% of the US plays video games. Only 305,418 people would have to sign it. That's probably how many people visit Slashdot a week.
If it's the pictures that you're worried about, archive, encrypt, and email them to yourself or upload them somewhere safe.
If you plan to take gigs and gigs of pictures, take an external hard drive with you and ship it back ahead of you. Make sure it's encrypted, too.
If you really want to test the law, simply encrypt your hard drive or store the photos in a PGP-encrypted file on the unencrypted hard drive. Remember, though, that while the 5th Amendment will probably protect you as an American citizen, it will not save you (nor your family) from the hours and hours of delay and frustration.
What if I'm patronizing a company which is based in my home state? That's intrastate, unless it could be proven that my packets are going out-of-state before hitting their destination.
These arguably are unconstitutional. I'm not necessarily saying that these agencies are detrimental to society or immoral or otherwise bad.
The Constitution is law. Fortunately, the Constitution provides a system by which it can be amended.
In order for these agencies to be established in the first place, the Constitution should have been amended to allow the Federal government to have jurisdiction in the areas these agencies cover.
I know the Air Force once was a division of the Army. Art. I, Sec. 8 provides for the creation of an army and navy (To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy;). Obviously, an Air Force wasn't even conceivable back then. A constitutional amendment would fix this problem.
What's the Constitutionality of network neutrality legislation?
IANAL, but I think it would be a hard sell to Constitution-following legislators (oh, how scant their numbers are these days). I think there could be some applicability for the Interstate Commerce clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes), however intrastate networks would and should be unfettered by Federal law. It would be up to the several states themselves to enact neutrality legislation if they so desire.
Personally, I'm against Federal legislation for network neutrality, partially on principle, partially on the the grounds that I fear/know that the Federal government listens to lobbyists and corporations more than citizens who designed and currently use the thing.
I would prefer to see an easily-joinable coalition of Internet-based companies and ISPs which democratically--one vote per entity--chooses regulations in an RFC-like manner and punishes with disconnection/shunning any entity which violate these regulations.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Canonical will go through with it, but probably keep it at ARM's length.
...and how much are we the public going to see?
IANAL.
Actually, CA courts ruled that the state has an interest in protecting business interests within the state. If my understanding of the Wikipedia summary of non-compete clauses is correct, being that the individual in question, as well as his destination is in CA, CA court could claim jurisdiction.
U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 states No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. The Full Faith and Credit clause (Article IV, Section 1) could apply, but I don't know enough case law to know how it could be effectively applied in IBM's favor--it seems that the courts favor the less restrictive state when using it.
You are correct, noncompete clauses are illegal in CA. The decision could be appealed to the SCOTUS, I believe, where undoubtedly it will be reversed.
Here's a regex that will identify your mom: /^'s[:space:][mM]om$/
Send them certification books, i.e. Network+, A+, Security+ study books, as well as theoretical computer science books. These materials rarely require access to an actual computer.
If it's "computer repair" books that they really want, Mueller's Upgrading and Repairing PCs is one of the best books. I've not used it in a long while, but I think it's not as much hands-on stuff. I know it covers a ton.
I was talking to a friend at work about this. We basically felt the same way--Microsoft will eventually either have to cut significant costs so that it can afford to sell Windows for $10-25 per copy (even if it's a reduced version for netbooks) or move to a Software as a Service (SaaS) model. Microsoft could charge $10 to OEMs (maybe $50 retail) upfront, then require a subscription to get updates other than security updates. It could move to a "new big feature" once or twice a year that only subscribers can get.
It's a little farfetched, I know, but it seems the way to go these days. I'd rather pay $50 upfront and then $10 per month for four years than pay $400 upfront at retail. On a netbook, I think it wouldn't be unreasonable for Microsoft to offer something like Box.net on-line storage/backup as part of the subscription, too, especially for netbooks, which, like phones, are more prone to being lost/stolen than larger laptops and desktops.
Too bad CT won't do it in time to put Bob Barr on the ballot, since the state and court claimed that it would take too long to reprint paper ballots and reprogram electronic voting machines with his name, even though he met all requirements on time.
All of my computers and connections combined are seeding approximately 3 MB/s. It's rocking.
How can it be guaranteed that your mailed absentee ballot would be
I suppose that you could document every step of the way to show that you sent it (even as much as video recording marking, signing, delivering, and the post office accepting the ballot), but there is no way--at least one that I know--to verify that your ballot was processed and counted.
I'm worried about this, too. Granted, I have WiFi available at every location I frequent (home, work, girlfriends', etc.) so I can use T-Mobile's T-Mobile@Home thing.
However, out in the sticks, where my parents' live, there's almost no coverage on their map. I don't know if AT&T has 3G coverage out there, but I'm 90% sure that it has 3G coverage in Pittsburgh proper.
Has anyone tried the G1 on AT&T yet?
He might be like Don Knuth and have a secretary read all his email and print out the ones to which he should reply, pen his reply, then give it back to the secretary to type and send.
This man, however, takes that a step further, and perhaps has his secretary print out every /. story and comment so that he can choose which to reply to.
Easily.
Vote for Real Change in 2008. Vote third party.
The Steve was quick to point out that "Actually, all of the new HD camcorders of the past few years use USB 2."
See it on Ars.
It's not a matter of speed, it's a matter of paired hardware support. DV Cameras have Firewire out and that's the standard when it comes to DV capture. USB2.0 could arguably handle it, but the DV market chose Firewire. This, obviously, makes the new Macbooks useless for folks who rely on Firewire devices and who have a hardware investment in Firewire devices.
I agree that this is a poor decision, but perhaps Apple made an executive design somewhere along the line, expecting users who really need Firewire to spring for the MBP instead.
Is that the sound of cloud computing advocates crying, or the sound of Richard Stallman laughing?
I'm sorry, I was not sufficiently clear.
I meant to say that I would exclude duplicates. Since this is all theoretical anyway, I don't feel the need to prove how I would do that. I should have said "barring duplicates" or "excluding duplicates" instead of "with no duplicates." Mea culpa.
There can't be a biased sample if I'm working with the population. I have no intention of working with just a sample. If they say that fewer than 0.002% of the population cares, and I show that 0.002% of the population plus one person does care, I've proved them wrong.
Your third point is indeed correct, but is essentially addressed within it. These sites are could be taken as just an example of the places that this poll could be spread. A simple "and etc." in my list addresses that point. I'd rather work with the world population since the EA rep didn't specify "US gamers". I included the US figures as a subset in the event EA meant "US gamers".
"Your new account could not be created because your email address is on the US Federal Sex Offender List."
YOU GOT SEXROLL'D!
Population as of 16:26 GMT (EST+5) Oct 15, 2008 according to census.gov
Assuming everyone in the world is a gamer, it would take 13,460,606 people worldwide speaking out against this to prove that statistic to be incorrect.
Assuming the same for the U.S., it would take 610,836 people speaking out against DRM to prove that incorrectly.
I'm sure that a significantly powered site spread to Slashdot, Digg, Reddit, Stumbleupon, and Facebook would probably demonstrate 610,836 people against DRM with no duplicates.
It would be even easier if we assumed that only 50% of the US plays video games. Only 305,418 people would have to sign it. That's probably how many people visit Slashdot a week.
Anyone ballsy enough to stream using a more widely available, non-Flash codec?
The Cathedral versus the Bazaar.
If it's the pictures that you're worried about, archive, encrypt, and email them to yourself or upload them somewhere safe.
If you plan to take gigs and gigs of pictures, take an external hard drive with you and ship it back ahead of you. Make sure it's encrypted, too.
If you really want to test the law, simply encrypt your hard drive or store the photos in a PGP-encrypted file on the unencrypted hard drive. Remember, though, that while the 5th Amendment will probably protect you as an American citizen, it will not save you (nor your family) from the hours and hours of delay and frustration.
What if I'm patronizing a company which is based in my home state? That's intrastate, unless it could be proven that my packets are going out-of-state before hitting their destination.
These arguably are unconstitutional. I'm not necessarily saying that these agencies are detrimental to society or immoral or otherwise bad.
The Constitution is law. Fortunately, the Constitution provides a system by which it can be amended.
In order for these agencies to be established in the first place, the Constitution should have been amended to allow the Federal government to have jurisdiction in the areas these agencies cover.
I know the Air Force once was a division of the Army. Art. I, Sec. 8 provides for the creation of an army and navy (To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy;). Obviously, an Air Force wasn't even conceivable back then. A constitutional amendment would fix this problem.
What's the Constitutionality of network neutrality legislation?
IANAL, but I think it would be a hard sell to Constitution-following legislators (oh, how scant their numbers are these days). I think there could be some applicability for the Interstate Commerce clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes), however intrastate networks would and should be unfettered by Federal law. It would be up to the several states themselves to enact neutrality legislation if they so desire.
Personally, I'm against Federal legislation for network neutrality, partially on principle, partially on the the grounds that I fear/know that the Federal government listens to lobbyists and corporations more than citizens who designed and currently use the thing.
I would prefer to see an easily-joinable coalition of Internet-based companies and ISPs which democratically--one vote per entity--chooses regulations in an RFC-like manner and punishes with disconnection/shunning any entity which violate these regulations.