It also sounds like many of the firewall solutions we have today. We have firewalls that already block malware infested sites, through either the host file or through their own mechanism, and that will intercept/sandbox/delete anything that gets downloaded/launched without the users explicit permission. And we have firewalls/anti-virus solutions that automatically update themselves with the latest lists of blocked ip addresses, the latest lists of virus/malware signature definitions, and several that will even send a suspicious program (with the user's permission) back to the anti-virus software/firewall manufacturer for deeper analysis when that becomes necessary.
And even that, those solutions haven't been successful at blacklisting every malware site, or guaranteeing that the user won't download and install themselves a cute screensaver program -- along with the latest Gator program or the very latest suite of malware programs. So if BLADE is doing anything new, or doing it better than anyone else, that's not clear from the article (although, I've got to hand it to them, even without a working downloadable demo, they've been quite successful at publishing duplicate news about themselves through Slashdot, so if they have a scripted solution for Slashdot submissions, at least that part seems to be working just fine).
...it's simpler to just block it entirely than try to figure out exactly which ones are okay.
Jamendo filters by types of CC licenses. Google filters by types of CC licenses. And probably a thousand other search engines can do the same. What is so hard to "figure out exactly"?
I suppose that it's apparently enough that the CBC figures...
Why are you giving the CBC the benefit of the doubt? Another CBC employee has already said that "collective agreements" were to blame. Why simply assume that the new guy correcting him is telling the truth?
After all, the CBC is already a big supporter of the "iPod" tax (a tax levy which independent artists will not be able to opt out of, and yet a tax which they will have no hope to collect from either). Wouldn't it be just simpler to assume that the CBC doesn't like commercial CC music precisely because by its very existence and continued growth, it is showing how bad of an idea this "iPod tax" really is???
If you buy third-party stuff, don't be surprised it doesn't work properly.
I do love your conciseness, but in this case, I think you really meant to say "If you buy Apple-tested Apple-certified 'Made for Apple' third-party stuff (which Apple takes a minimum of 40% from its retail price wherever they may be sold), then don't be surprised if those products destroy your much pricier phone (instead of protecting it). The official 'Made for Apple' icon never actually stood for anything. You guys are idiots if you ever actually believed otherwise. "
Tons of people got tired of waiting for the iPhone on Verizon...
That's certainly true enough, but that must not be the only reason. For instance, one of the Galaxy Suite phones on AT&T, the AT&T Captivate, has been selling very well against the iPhone. So being on AT&T can not be considered the only reason people are making the switch to Android anymore.
I wonder if the AT&T Captivate is selling for the same price AT&T is selling the iPhone for?
Overall, and despite their initial problems with gps (which I don't they've sorted out yet), the Galaxy Suite phones have been doing very well worldwide (I think Samsung sold 5 million Galaxy S phones, that number completely eclipses the number of Droid Incredibles/Droid X that are currently being sold!?!).
For someone that has only made a handful of posts for all the years he's been on here, I don't think the system thinks that you're bad. Anti-social, may be. Bad, no.
Go ahead and rub your nose in it until you get over your "how DARE you claim incompetence within the Army" offense.
First, let me start by saying that the guy you replied to was rude, and I don't see why he needed to insult you to make his point. However...
What went wrong is that a server that's not supposed to ever go down went down.
Your argument seems circular. Your assumption is that this root server is never supposed to go down. In this physical world, that's a pretty huge assumption to make.
And no, saying that the server went down is no proof positive that it should never have happened. The fact is, there was redundancy and the redundancy kicked in as it was supposed to. Now we're saying the redundancy can be outside of root, or inside of root, it doesn't really matter. And you're saying that the redundancy has to be ***inside*** of root, there can be no other way.
Tell us, have you read something that gave you that idea? Me, I'm thinking that you probably read that recent Times (or Newsweek) article, if anything, I do agree that the article only seemed to romanticize and emphasize the importance of root servers, but I'd argue that the article was more a piece of flamboyant story-telling than an actual report on an actual technology. The truth about root servers is far less sexy than what the article did imply. The real truth is that if all the root dns servers went down at the same time, most of the internet and its dns would keep on working pretty nicely. We'd be running on old possibly slightly outdated cached dns information, but that wouldn't really matter -- it's only the end results that would matter anyway.
Assuming that, what you're saying, is correct. I really don't know if it is.
Perhaps the ex-partner was acting as the sole intermediary and made the entire offer up? In which case, the offer wasn't really made to "us", or to anyone for that matter. The parent may just have used the word "us" to bolster his claim that this was a partnership.
Having seen similar cons being done in my own field, I can certainly believe that an unfunded producer/entrepreneur would pretend to have a firm offer from an heavy-weight client, as a way to make sure his unpaid worker/co-partner doesn't get a full time job somewhere else for a real company and instead keeps on working himself to the bone.
On a side-note, can you explain what he's talking about here?
Mobile phones and personal technology, for example, could be used to record the bills that members of Congress actually read and then determine what stimulus funds were successfully spent.
Is he really saying that phones/tablets will be able to track the members of Congress reading of the bills? How will that work exactly? Is he planning to strap their body to a chair and keep their eye-lids open (just like they did in Clockwork Orange)? Or does he think that we could get by with the much less intrusive method of using the front-facing camera of their own tablet/phone to track the movements of their pupils while they're reading each page?
Soooo, this must be a "screw you" for no longer making WinMo phones?
Well even if they did want to sue their own customers, it's usually considered bad form to do so. Plus out of these four companies, Motorola is the weakest one right now (before Android, Motorola had been in decline for a number of years), and when attacking a large pack -- it's far better to isolate and go after the weakest ones first.
That's probably because you haven't looked at the nine patents in question (see the complaint in this PDF).
The first patent listed is the one entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames,". It expires in 2013. It's the FAT patent (it's not even related to mobile phones as the article implied). It was used against Tom Tom recently, and since that attempted shake-down, plenty of prior art has been found and has already been submitted to the USPTO.
The second patent seems to be the same as the first one. Can anyone explain what happened there???
The third is about "Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations". Reading its full description, this one seems kind of obvious to me, plus 2002 seems kind of late for applying for such a patent. Also with this kind of patent, Microsoft could just as well sue anyone and everyone involved in Flash memory right now. If I'm wrong in my lay interpretation, I'm sure someone will correct me.
The fourth one is entitled "Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer". This one seems so broad and yet so obvious, it was applied for in 2001 (if I'm not understanding the dates and to what they apply to, please someone tell me).
Please take a look at the rest yourself. It's no wonder Microsoft's share price went down as this was announced.
U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517
("the '517 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,621,746
("the '746 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,826,762 ("the '762 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,909,910
("the '910 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 7,644,376 ("the '376 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 5,664,133
("the '133 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,578,054 ("the '054 patent"), and U.S. Patent No.
6,370,566 ("the '566 patent") (collectively, "the Microsoft Patents"),
The first patent listed: U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"), entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames," is expiring in 2013. It's basically what others have coined the FAT patent, since it could technically be used against anything and everything that uses the FAT file system.
In any case, that patent is probably not even going to last until 2013. Since Microsoft attacked Tom Tom with it, plenty of prior art examples have already been found and submitted to the USPTO for review.
I don't have the time to look up the rest of them, perhaps someone else could do it. Here is the list (extracted from Microsoft's complaint in PDF format).
U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517
("the '517 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,621,746
("the '746 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,826,762 ("the '762 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,909,910
("the '910 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 7,644,376 ("the '376 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 5,664,133
("the '133 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,578,054 ("the '054 patent"), and U.S. Patent No.
6,370,566 ("the '566 patent") (collectively, "the Microsoft Patents"),
Read the user reviews. Take a look at its number of stars. If a multi-player game (as the article mentions) is sending geo data in the background when it's not even supposed to be running -- someone will tell you this, in fact the app will have such a low star rating as a result, you're not even likely to want to download it in the first place.
Believe me, there are enough people watching battery usage, watching running processes, watching aLogcat (not just the sdk logging tool, but the logging app that can be downloaded from the Market), and running different background debugging/logging/tracing tools while they're using their own devices, that the first place to be immediately notified of any problem is usually the Marketplace, and therefore immediately any of the other users (that might want to download the app).
Is this system perfect? No, but right now, it's working pretty smoothly, probably so smoothly that the journalist writing the article didn't even feel like listing the apps guilty of this (listing them would probably nullify his points, since we could immediately look them up and tell you how long it took between the time the update/app was published and the time the suspicious activity was first discovered and penalized in its ratings and comments).
That TGV record is for a test train on a specially prepared track with customized power feed and tensioning on the catenary.
And most likely, that test track was completely secure. The biggest problems with TGVs right now is the possibility that someone might cut/jump the fences/barbed wires and walk along the tracks. People tend to underestimate the amount of time it takes to get off the track when they hear a bullet train coming.
No, I think he's referencing the article (which is referencing the patent application) which only mentions a camera and only has diagrams of a camera (no phone). So it's clear from the quoted description and the diagrams that they think their invention is novel enough even among standalone cameras. In any case, even if they do use this technology for their own phone, there is no reason they wouldn't license this technology to camera manufacturers. Take one of the patents they have on h.264, they've licensed it to other companies for instance (or at least they've put it in a patent pool). Also, I doubt that this functionality will make them much money if they keep it to themselves. It's not like photography is the main reason people buy iPhones/iPods (although who knows what will the future entail).
Also regarding your second comment, the latest iPod Touch doesn't seem to have a [camera] flash. May be it's there, but if it is, I just didn't see it (which happens sometimes). Also, I tried googling for an answer, but with all the results of Adobe Flash as it relates to the iPod Touch, there was just too much noise for me to wade through.
Bloomberg News (linked above) reported that Facebook will release two AT&T smartphones in 2011, first in Europe and then in America.
For me, the article lost me when it said Facebook was going to release its AT&T phone first in Europe? I didn't even realize that AT&T was selling phones in Europe. Anyway, I hope this means that AT&T will stop charging $21,000 to the vacationers that forget to turn off data roaming while in Europe.
They compete with companies who are non-union, and build their cars right in America, like Toyota.
The NUMMI Fremont Toyota plant that just closed down recently was union-based. In fact, the first thing that Toyota did when it purchased the plant from Ford, was to re-hire all the Union organizers and troublemakers that Ford had purged, then fly them to Japan so that they would work in the Japanese plants themselves, and fly them back to their original plant so that they would become its new leadership.
The reasoning of Toyota's management was that there was no way in hell that they could gain the trust of all the American workers at their new plant in such a short period of time, that's why they turned to the supposed troublemakers that Ford had labeled as such, because by virtue of being the troublemakers/union organizers, those folks had already demonstrated the requisite leadership abilities and already gained the trust of their co-workers.
And if you want to look for a simpler explanation of the difference between American and Japanese companies. Look no further to how Toyota's executives are being compensated. Even thought their company is freaking huge, their executive compensation system is much-much saner in my opinion. It's not only much smaller, but it's also based on a much more longer-term view of the market. It actually makes way too much sense if you ask me.
I think the rule of thumb is most banks offer a few months' worth of records. My Canadian bank offers 3 months worth of records on line as well.
May be in Canada, in the US most of the larger banks (even the really bad ones) offer at least one year of downloadable records. I have a relative in Europe, and one of his banks gives him access to download up-to six years of records!!! Granted, six years is a bit much, but 3 months is really low in my opinion.
It would also help if we could see a picture or a marketing description of this "video pod". If it's made to look exactly like an iPod, then I would have some concerns. Otherwise, the terms 'space station pod', 'escape pod', 'podcast', and/or 'video podcast' have already been in common use for so long, it would be really hard to take Apple's side on this one.
Yes a WAN, but a WAN under his control (his budget). After all, what's the point of the NSA if it's not the single point of failure of anything? Just imagine, what would happen if the NSA went on strike tomorrow? That's right, probably nothing. Or perhaps, the internet may even become a little faster that day.
Even China and Iran are not scared of the NSA. They're scared of Wikileaks, they're scared of YouTube, and yes they're deathly afraid of Twitter, but the NSA, no. As far as China and Iran are concerned, the internet dancing chipmunks are far more suspicious and scary than the NSA, or perhaps they're thinking that Twitter is the NSA (which frankly, I would find hard to believe), but in either case, I do not think the NSA can take the credit for either of those two things.
The software isn't even "daydreaming" either. You could say it's parsing and cross-referencing emotions and meta-objects out from a textual database. And then, it's returning the resulting records in the first person singular, but that's about it.
That's hardly what I'd call "daydreaming". When I daydream, I see my dream from the first person's perspective. That part is correct. But there is at least some internal visualization going on. So unless this software starts generating internal visual images to make its decisions, let's say some.png image with at least one pixel within it, or some.png image representing itself winning the lottery, then I'm calling shenanigans on the entire "daydreaming" claim.
I wonder if the EFF had been around in the 1870's if they would have been accusing Alexander Graham Bell of "stifling free speech" with the original telephone....
Hmm...
On June 11 [2002], to little fanfare, the United State House of Representatives declared that the telephone was invented by an Italian-American named Antonio Meucci, a sausage and candle maker. Forget Alexander Graham Bell. The House declared that Bell's patent for the telephone was based on "fraud and misrepresentation." http://hnn.us/articles/802.html
Slashdot Mirror
It also sounds like many of the firewall solutions we have today. We have firewalls that already block malware infested sites, through either the host file or through their own mechanism, and that will intercept/sandbox/delete anything that gets downloaded/launched without the users explicit permission. And we have firewalls/anti-virus solutions that automatically update themselves with the latest lists of blocked ip addresses, the latest lists of virus/malware signature definitions, and several that will even send a suspicious program (with the user's permission) back to the anti-virus software/firewall manufacturer for deeper analysis when that becomes necessary.
And even that, those solutions haven't been successful at blacklisting every malware site, or guaranteeing that the user won't download and install themselves a cute screensaver program -- along with the latest Gator program or the very latest suite of malware programs. So if BLADE is doing anything new, or doing it better than anyone else, that's not clear from the article (although, I've got to hand it to them, even without a working downloadable demo, they've been quite successful at publishing duplicate news about themselves through Slashdot, so if they have a scripted solution for Slashdot submissions, at least that part seems to be working just fine).
...it's simpler to just block it entirely than try to figure out exactly which ones are okay.
Jamendo filters by types of CC licenses. Google filters by types of CC licenses. And probably a thousand other search engines can do the same. What is so hard to "figure out exactly"?
I suppose that it's apparently enough that the CBC figures...
Why are you giving the CBC the benefit of the doubt? Another CBC employee has already said that "collective agreements" were to blame. Why simply assume that the new guy correcting him is telling the truth?
After all, the CBC is already a big supporter of the "iPod" tax (a tax levy which independent artists will not be able to opt out of, and yet a tax which they will have no hope to collect from either). Wouldn't it be just simpler to assume that the CBC doesn't like commercial CC music precisely because by its very existence and continued growth, it is showing how bad of an idea this "iPod tax" really is???
If you buy third-party stuff, don't be surprised it doesn't work properly.
I do love your conciseness, but in this case, I think you really meant to say "If you buy Apple-tested Apple-certified 'Made for Apple' third-party stuff (which Apple takes a minimum of 40% from its retail price wherever they may be sold), then don't be surprised if those products destroy your much pricier phone (instead of protecting it). The official 'Made for Apple' icon never actually stood for anything. You guys are idiots if you ever actually believed otherwise. "
Tons of people got tired of waiting for the iPhone on Verizon...
That's certainly true enough, but that must not be the only reason. For instance, one of the Galaxy Suite phones on AT&T, the AT&T Captivate, has been selling very well against the iPhone. So being on AT&T can not be considered the only reason people are making the switch to Android anymore.
I wonder if the AT&T Captivate is selling for the same price AT&T is selling the iPhone for?
Overall, and despite their initial problems with gps (which I don't they've sorted out yet), the Galaxy Suite phones have been doing very well worldwide (I think Samsung sold 5 million Galaxy S phones, that number completely eclipses the number of Droid Incredibles/Droid X that are currently being sold!?!).
For someone that has only made a handful of posts for all the years he's been on here, I don't think the system thinks that you're bad. Anti-social, may be. Bad, no.
Go ahead and rub your nose in it until you get over your "how DARE you claim incompetence within the Army" offense.
First, let me start by saying that the guy you replied to was rude, and I don't see why he needed to insult you to make his point. However...
What went wrong is that a server that's not supposed to ever go down went down.
Your argument seems circular. Your assumption is that this root server is never supposed to go down. In this physical world, that's a pretty huge assumption to make.
And no, saying that the server went down is no proof positive that it should never have happened. The fact is, there was redundancy and the redundancy kicked in as it was supposed to. Now we're saying the redundancy can be outside of root, or inside of root, it doesn't really matter. And you're saying that the redundancy has to be ***inside*** of root, there can be no other way.
Tell us, have you read something that gave you that idea? Me, I'm thinking that you probably read that recent Times (or Newsweek) article, if anything, I do agree that the article only seemed to romanticize and emphasize the importance of root servers, but I'd argue that the article was more a piece of flamboyant story-telling than an actual report on an actual technology. The truth about root servers is far less sexy than what the article did imply. The real truth is that if all the root dns servers went down at the same time, most of the internet and its dns would keep on working pretty nicely. We'd be running on old possibly slightly outdated cached dns information, but that wouldn't really matter -- it's only the end results that would matter anyway.
Assuming that, what you're saying, is correct. I really don't know if it is.
Perhaps the ex-partner was acting as the sole intermediary and made the entire offer up? In which case, the offer wasn't really made to "us", or to anyone for that matter. The parent may just have used the word "us" to bolster his claim that this was a partnership.
Having seen similar cons being done in my own field, I can certainly believe that an unfunded producer/entrepreneur would pretend to have a firm offer from an heavy-weight client, as a way to make sure his unpaid worker/co-partner doesn't get a full time job somewhere else for a real company and instead keeps on working himself to the bone.
Mobile phones and personal technology, for example, could be used to record the bills that members of Congress actually read and then determine what stimulus funds were successfully spent.
Is he really saying that phones/tablets will be able to track the members of Congress reading of the bills? How will that work exactly? Is he planning to strap their body to a chair and keep their eye-lids open (just like they did in Clockwork Orange)? Or does he think that we could get by with the much less intrusive method of using the front-facing camera of their own tablet/phone to track the movements of their pupils while they're reading each page?
Soooo, this must be a "screw you" for no longer making WinMo phones?
Well even if they did want to sue their own customers, it's usually considered bad form to do so. Plus out of these four companies, Motorola is the weakest one right now (before Android, Motorola had been in decline for a number of years), and when attacking a large pack -- it's far better to isolate and go after the weakest ones first.
That's probably because you haven't looked at the nine patents in question (see the complaint in this PDF).
The first patent listed is the one entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames,". It expires in 2013. It's the FAT patent (it's not even related to mobile phones as the article implied). It was used against Tom Tom recently, and since that attempted shake-down, plenty of prior art has been found and has already been submitted to the USPTO.
The second patent seems to be the same as the first one. Can anyone explain what happened there???
The third is about "Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations". Reading its full description, this one seems kind of obvious to me, plus 2002 seems kind of late for applying for such a patent. Also with this kind of patent, Microsoft could just as well sue anyone and everyone involved in Flash memory right now. If I'm wrong in my lay interpretation, I'm sure someone will correct me.
The fourth one is entitled "Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer". This one seems so broad and yet so obvious, it was applied for in 2001 (if I'm not understanding the dates and to what they apply to, please someone tell me).
Please take a look at the rest yourself. It's no wonder Microsoft's share price went down as this was announced.
U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,621,746 ("the '746 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,826,762 ("the '762 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,909,910 ("the '910 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 7,644,376 ("the '376 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,664,133 ("the '133 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,578,054 ("the '054 patent"), and
U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 ("the '566 patent") (collectively, "the Microsoft Patents"),
The first patent listed: U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"), entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames," is expiring in 2013. It's basically what others have coined the FAT patent, since it could technically be used against anything and everything that uses the FAT file system.
In any case, that patent is probably not even going to last until 2013. Since Microsoft attacked Tom Tom with it, plenty of prior art examples have already been found and submitted to the USPTO for review. I don't have the time to look up the rest of them, perhaps someone else could do it. Here is the list (extracted from Microsoft's complaint in PDF format).
U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,621,746 ("the '746 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,826,762 ("the '762 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,909,910 ("the '910 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 7,644,376 ("the '376 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,664,133 ("the '133 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,578,054 ("the '054 patent"),
and U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 ("the '566 patent") (collectively, "the Microsoft Patents"),
How exactly is one supposed to do this?
Read the user reviews. Take a look at its number of stars. If a multi-player game (as the article mentions) is sending geo data in the background when it's not even supposed to be running -- someone will tell you this, in fact the app will have such a low star rating as a result, you're not even likely to want to download it in the first place.
Believe me, there are enough people watching battery usage, watching running processes, watching aLogcat (not just the sdk logging tool, but the logging app that can be downloaded from the Market), and running different background debugging/logging/tracing tools while they're using their own devices, that the first place to be immediately notified of any problem is usually the Marketplace, and therefore immediately any of the other users (that might want to download the app).
Is this system perfect? No, but right now, it's working pretty smoothly, probably so smoothly that the journalist writing the article didn't even feel like listing the apps guilty of this (listing them would probably nullify his points, since we could immediately look them up and tell you how long it took between the time the update/app was published and the time the suspicious activity was first discovered and penalized in its ratings and comments).
How do these speeds compare to the top speeds of roller coasters??? Are the passengers allowed to open the windows and stick their arms out??
That TGV record is for a test train on a specially prepared track with customized power feed and tensioning on the catenary.
And most likely, that test track was completely secure. The biggest problems with TGVs right now is the possibility that someone might cut/jump the fences/barbed wires and walk along the tracks. People tend to underestimate the amount of time it takes to get off the track when they hear a bullet train coming.
There are other people who share my name. One of them is a big drinker.
With a name like Anonymous Coward, I'm not surprised.
But then, no one would click on it.
No, I think he's referencing the article (which is referencing the patent application) which only mentions a camera and only has diagrams of a camera (no phone). So it's clear from the quoted description and the diagrams that they think their invention is novel enough even among standalone cameras. In any case, even if they do use this technology for their own phone, there is no reason they wouldn't license this technology to camera manufacturers. Take one of the patents they have on h.264, they've licensed it to other companies for instance (or at least they've put it in a patent pool). Also, I doubt that this functionality will make them much money if they keep it to themselves. It's not like photography is the main reason people buy iPhones/iPods (although who knows what will the future entail).
Also regarding your second comment, the latest iPod Touch doesn't seem to have a [camera] flash. May be it's there, but if it is, I just didn't see it (which happens sometimes). Also, I tried googling for an answer, but with all the results of Adobe Flash as it relates to the iPod Touch, there was just too much noise for me to wade through.
Bloomberg News (linked above) reported that Facebook will release two AT&T smartphones in 2011, first in Europe and then in America.
For me, the article lost me when it said Facebook was going to release its AT&T phone first in Europe? I didn't even realize that AT&T was selling phones in Europe. Anyway, I hope this means that AT&T will stop charging $21,000 to the vacationers that forget to turn off data roaming while in Europe.
They compete with companies who are non-union, and build their cars right in America, like Toyota.
The NUMMI Fremont Toyota plant that just closed down recently was union-based. In fact, the first thing that Toyota did when it purchased the plant from Ford, was to re-hire all the Union organizers and troublemakers that Ford had purged, then fly them to Japan so that they would work in the Japanese plants themselves, and fly them back to their original plant so that they would become its new leadership.
The reasoning of Toyota's management was that there was no way in hell that they could gain the trust of all the American workers at their new plant in such a short period of time, that's why they turned to the supposed troublemakers that Ford had labeled as such, because by virtue of being the troublemakers/union organizers, those folks had already demonstrated the requisite leadership abilities and already gained the trust of their co-workers.
And if you want to look for a simpler explanation of the difference between American and Japanese companies. Look no further to how Toyota's executives are being compensated. Even thought their company is freaking huge, their executive compensation system is much-much saner in my opinion. It's not only much smaller, but it's also based on a much more longer-term view of the market. It actually makes way too much sense if you ask me.
Don't all the music/movie producers operate this way???
I think the rule of thumb is most banks offer a few months' worth of records. My Canadian bank offers 3 months worth of records on line as well.
May be in Canada, in the US most of the larger banks (even the really bad ones) offer at least one year of downloadable records. I have a relative in Europe, and one of his banks gives him access to download up-to six years of records!!! Granted, six years is a bit much, but 3 months is really low in my opinion.
It would also help if we could see a picture or a marketing description of this "video pod". If it's made to look exactly like an iPod, then I would have some concerns. Otherwise, the terms 'space station pod', 'escape pod', 'podcast', and/or 'video podcast' have already been in common use for so long, it would be really hard to take Apple's side on this one.
Yes a WAN, but a WAN under his control (his budget). After all, what's the point of the NSA if it's not the single point of failure of anything? Just imagine, what would happen if the NSA went on strike tomorrow? That's right, probably nothing. Or perhaps, the internet may even become a little faster that day.
Even China and Iran are not scared of the NSA. They're scared of Wikileaks, they're scared of YouTube, and yes they're deathly afraid of Twitter, but the NSA, no. As far as China and Iran are concerned, the internet dancing chipmunks are far more suspicious and scary than the NSA, or perhaps they're thinking that Twitter is the NSA (which frankly, I would find hard to believe), but in either case, I do not think the NSA can take the credit for either of those two things.
The software isn't even "daydreaming" either. You could say it's parsing and cross-referencing emotions and meta-objects out from a textual database. And then, it's returning the resulting records in the first person singular, but that's about it.
That's hardly what I'd call "daydreaming". When I daydream, I see my dream from the first person's perspective. That part is correct. But there is at least some internal visualization going on. So unless this software starts generating internal visual images to make its decisions, let's say some .png image with at least one pixel within it, or some .png image representing itself winning the lottery, then I'm calling shenanigans on the entire "daydreaming" claim.
I wonder if the EFF had been around in the 1870's if they would have been accusing Alexander Graham Bell of "stifling free speech" with the original telephone....
Hmm...
On June 11 [2002], to little fanfare, the United State House of Representatives declared that the telephone was invented by an Italian-American named Antonio Meucci, a sausage and candle maker. Forget Alexander Graham Bell. The House declared that Bell's patent for the telephone was based on "fraud and misrepresentation."
http://hnn.us/articles/802.html