I got mine at Costco about 2 Months ago for $110. Glad I did. I love the phone. The only issue I have with the hardware is that every connection goes through the USB Port. Power, Audio, ummmm......you get the point. What makes that less than desirable is when in my car I can't charge and listen to at the same time.
Well, it's pain, true... but I bought a tiny little adapter on Ebay for about $3 that gives you a mini-USB and an audio jack. Works well enough.
But look at all the criminals we catch as a result!
Which is another good point. If they're going to run such a system, they'd better be prepared to provide accurate and public records on just how well it performs, and precisely what activities were embarked upon in response to collected data. The TSA's approach of doing whatever the hell they want, and then lying to Congress about it is completely unacceptable, but I think there's a good chance this effort will head down the same road.
Sad fact is, law enforcement in any county, under any legal system, cannot and should not be given more power than they can be trusted to use wisely. In the United States today... that's not very much power at all.
It was created so that CEOs could not claim "I knew nothing about financials".
IMHO same should apply for "I knew nothing about SomeIllegalAct".
If CEO "knows" nothing about some illegal behaviour going on for long time by an employee, he is either an idiot (and should not get huge salary nor golden parachute) or "criminally negligent" or good old fashioned liar.
Look, I'm not really disputing you. Like I said, I believe people should be held accountable for what they do (or, for that matter, what they cover up.) My point is that this could easily devolve into a witch hunt, given the current legal climate in this country. When that happens, people who did nothing wrong get screwed.
The guy is charged with stalking and is then stalked by the police with gps... wow.
Well, like most other such "crimes", they're perfectly legal for the police to commit. Heck, in my State, if the police falsely arrest you they're completely immune from any legal consequences. A lawyer friend of mine said, "Yeah, the law sucks, but there it is." Apparently our Legislature believes that the police can't do their jobs unless they're unaccountable.
if Police can do it without it being a suspect OR having a warrant, then we, the citizens, should have that same right. That means that we can now track judges to find their homes, what schools their kids go to, where member of the opposing political parties are heading off to (what do you mean that is a no-tel hotel; and hookers were there, along with representatives from Exon??? Really). Want to know where the chief of police or head of your school lives? Real easy now that nobody has privacy.
Yeah, but if that starts getting popular they'll immediately rule that GPS devices are illegal for private citizens to use for tracking civil servants or public figures. I mean, it's not like this is a fair fight, exactly.
The one interesting point in the article was the statement that the guys driveway was public and therefore the police were at liberty to attach the device to his car there.
Why is his driveway public? I would have thought he would have owned the land up to the boundary stated on his property deeds and that would include his driveway, perhaps his driveway needs to be signed private no public access.
Well, I do know that where I used to live, the cops would come right up on your driveway and ticket your car. I got nailed that way once because my village sticker had expired, and as it happened my car was in the garage although the garage door was open. None of the surrounding towns would do that.
This seems like a lower-cost mechanism for doing the same thing. Is there more to it than that?
The fact that it is lower cost is precisely the problem. That means that it will get used (and, given the current law-enforcement climate in this country, abused) far more often. You're absolutely correct: legwork is more expensive than slapping a GPS transponder on a car. That's good, because it provides a natural limit to police surveillance ability. Bypassing that limitation would probably be a mistake, because police departments are no different from any other bureaucracy. They'll take the easy way out if they can, and that usually works out to our detriment.
I'm not sure how these trackers work: if it's a simple logging device then presumably the police would need to physically retrieve it in order to recover the stored data. A more sophisticated system would use the cellular network to broadcast updates when specific criteria are met (the vehicle coming to a full stop, for example.) Either way, it's probably a good idea to check the underside of your car now and then, especially you happen to be doing something you'd rather nobody know about.
Worse yet, even if the cops don't eventually charge you with anything, odds are a good lawyer could obtain those records. Bad news if, for example, that happens to be your wife's divorce lawyer trying to find out if you've been cheating. I understand that's already been happening in certain States (mine, for one) where tollway transponder records have been subpoenaed.
And it's getting worse. Many large corporations (Pepsico, for example) are installing foreign nationals as CEOs. Presumably that's because it will eliminate any vestige of concern for the citizenry that those corporations supposedly serve.
Your sig notwithstanding, your English is excellent by the way.
and civil liberties in this country, and if this plan makes you nervous, there is one ray of hope in all this. Federal law enforcement has a dismal record of implementing such sophisticated database systems. The FBI, for example, has spent billions and failed repeatedly. Not just law enforcement, either: the IRS and the FAA have both spent enormous sums on failed systems upgrades and botched implementations. I have the feeling this will be no different... although that doesn't mean it won't be a real problem, privacy-wise, regardless of its (unfounded, unproven and probably worthless) utility as an antiterrorism tool. Furthermore, given law enforcement's proven inability to maintain accurate and auditable records, its unwillingness to correct any errors, and the effect such errors have on the populace (the TSA's no-fly list comes to mind) it's clear that the Feds should never be allowed to operate such a system.
Terrorism is an evil enterprise, true enough. But this isn't all that far behind.
No, I'm not, and if you read the rest of my post, you'd note that I said I wasn't arguing against accountability. But I don't see that removing the corporate shield completely is a viable solution, which is what you seem to be arguing for.
And as it happens, that shield is neither absolute nor perfect, nor was it ever intended to be. CEOs that cross the line do get brought down.
Too big to jail? Corporation size could use some downward pressure.
Depends, and what I said doesn't just apply to the likes of an IBM or a General Motors.
Suppose you have a company of fifty people, and one of them does something illegal without the knowledge of the owner. Should the guy that built that business from the ground up, busted his ass for ten years, took out a second mortgage in order to meet payroll when times were tough... should he be imprisoned for that one employee's misdeeds?
I'm not arguing against accountability for upper management, but like most things there has to be a balance struck.
That's why the corporate entity was created back in the 1890's, to avoid responsibility.
Well, and that's not entirely illegitimate. If you have a large corporation, there's no way a few individuals at the top can possibly monitor the behavior of hundreds or thousands of employees. Should a CEO go to prison because some low-level manager commits fraud? If that were the case, no-one would ever take the risk of forming and running a major business.
Nevertheless, the corporate veil can be pierced if the crime is of sufficient magnitude. These guys do get away with a lot of crap though, and maybe that particular bar should be lowered on them a little.
That's the thing though, the fact that it was out of everyone else's backyard is what made it reasonably safe. Put it in a far removed location and you minimize the risk of a) it interfering with the current population and b) a future population stumbling across it by accident.
I'm sure that Larry Niven would probably agree with you.
"Aim that at me and I'll kill you." -- Jame Retief, "Retief's War"
That has GOT to be one of the best multi-book characters in Sci-Fi. Sure, the stories are a bit pulpy (okay, they're a LOT pulpy, and quite camp), but they're fun "Pulp (sci)-Fiction."
Couldn't agree more. I've read them all (a couple more than once) and have them all still in a box somewhere. Don't have enough shelf space to hold them my whole science fiction collection, unfortunately. Besides, Mr. Magnan warned me that the five-eyed little sticky-fingers will steal them when I'm not looking (that was my best 407A attempt-at-humor.)
I also know that if they're not terminally ill, it can and should be prevented.
Care to back up that assertion of moral authority? My body, my choice.
Nonsense. People that truly want to commit suicide will do it if they can. There's nothing you can do about it, and odds are, you'll never know anything until after it happens.
That's not the case with most attempted suicides, so this is NOT a "my body, my choice" scenario. An untimely (or even a timely) death has effects upon others that go far beyond the one individual that died. The one who suicided is beyond caring, but many other people can be damaged or destroyed by their "choice". Unless you are a completely isolated individual with no-one for whom you care (or who cares about you) then taking your own life is a selfish, destructive act. Most of us are not islands and while we may not see any value in our continued existence, others probably do.
Look, just because a person isn't able to perceive any solution to their problems other than suicide does not imply that that is the answer they truly want! If you really want to help them, give them another option, another choice. Don't just stand by while they snuff themselves out.
In any event, if someone reaches out to you and you do nothing, then you are an insufficient person. Do the rest of humanity a favor and off yourself first.
Slashdot Mirror
I got mine at Costco about 2 Months ago for $110. Glad I did. I love the phone. The only issue I have with the hardware is that every connection goes through the USB Port. Power, Audio, ummmm......you get the point. What makes that less than desirable is when in my car I can't charge and listen to at the same time.
Well, it's pain, true ... but I bought a tiny little adapter on Ebay for about $3 that gives you a mini-USB and an audio jack. Works well enough.
Balmer .. is that you?
Nah ... he just said he hates Google. Now, if he'd said he was going to (and I quote) "fuckin' KILL Google", well, yes, that would probably be Ballmer.
Except the iPhone is the same price or cheaper than other similar phones. Every carrier charges the same for data
Really? I paid $179.00 for my G1, and my unlimited data plan is $24.95. So I don't know where you're getting your pricing information.
is that a higher court will rule that it is illegal for citizens AND police to do just this. Whoever this bozo judge was will likely go no higher.
I hope you're right.
Just go into your office and CLOSE THE DOOR.
But look at all the criminals we catch as a result!
Which is another good point. If they're going to run such a system, they'd better be prepared to provide accurate and public records on just how well it performs, and precisely what activities were embarked upon in response to collected data. The TSA's approach of doing whatever the hell they want, and then lying to Congress about it is completely unacceptable, but I think there's a good chance this effort will head down the same road.
... that's not very much power at all.
Sad fact is, law enforcement in any county, under any legal system, cannot and should not be given more power than they can be trusted to use wisely. In the United States today
You do know why SOX was created?
It was created so that CEOs could not claim "I knew nothing about financials".
IMHO same should apply for "I knew nothing about SomeIllegalAct".
If CEO "knows" nothing about some illegal behaviour going on for long time by an employee, he is either an idiot (and should not get huge salary nor golden parachute) or "criminally negligent" or good old fashioned liar.
Look, I'm not really disputing you. Like I said, I believe people should be held accountable for what they do (or, for that matter, what they cover up.) My point is that this could easily devolve into a witch hunt, given the current legal climate in this country. When that happens, people who did nothing wrong get screwed.
The guy is charged with stalking and is then stalked by the police with gps ... wow.
Well, like most other such "crimes", they're perfectly legal for the police to commit. Heck, in my State, if the police falsely arrest you they're completely immune from any legal consequences. A lawyer friend of mine said, "Yeah, the law sucks, but there it is." Apparently our Legislature believes that the police can't do their jobs unless they're unaccountable.
6 man EOD team response, more like $10k. What are they going to do, NOT respond when you call about a potential bomb on your car?
No, they'll surround your car with sandbags and water barriers and blow it up.
It pays to think these things through.
Good reason to be driving a Rent-A-Wreck if you're doing something that might attract a GPS-wielding cop.
if Police can do it without it being a suspect OR having a warrant, then we, the citizens, should have that same right. That means that we can now track judges to find their homes, what schools their kids go to, where member of the opposing political parties are heading off to (what do you mean that is a no-tel hotel; and hookers were there, along with representatives from Exon??? Really). Want to know where the chief of police or head of your school lives? Real easy now that nobody has privacy.
Yeah, but if that starts getting popular they'll immediately rule that GPS devices are illegal for private citizens to use for tracking civil servants or public figures. I mean, it's not like this is a fair fight, exactly.
The one interesting point in the article was the statement that the guys driveway was public and therefore the police were at liberty to attach the device to his car there.
Why is his driveway public? I would have thought he would have owned the land up to the boundary stated on his property deeds and that would include his driveway, perhaps his driveway needs to be signed private no public access.
Well, I do know that where I used to live, the cops would come right up on your driveway and ticket your car. I got nailed that way once because my village sticker had expired, and as it happened my car was in the garage although the garage door was open. None of the surrounding towns would do that.
Glad I don't live there anymore.
This seems like a lower-cost mechanism for doing the same thing. Is there more to it than that?
The fact that it is lower cost is precisely the problem. That means that it will get used (and, given the current law-enforcement climate in this country, abused) far more often. You're absolutely correct: legwork is more expensive than slapping a GPS transponder on a car. That's good, because it provides a natural limit to police surveillance ability. Bypassing that limitation would probably be a mistake, because police departments are no different from any other bureaucracy. They'll take the easy way out if they can, and that usually works out to our detriment.
I'm not sure how these trackers work: if it's a simple logging device then presumably the police would need to physically retrieve it in order to recover the stored data. A more sophisticated system would use the cellular network to broadcast updates when specific criteria are met (the vehicle coming to a full stop, for example.) Either way, it's probably a good idea to check the underside of your car now and then, especially you happen to be doing something you'd rather nobody know about.
Worse yet, even if the cops don't eventually charge you with anything, odds are a good lawyer could obtain those records. Bad news if, for example, that happens to be your wife's divorce lawyer trying to find out if you've been cheating. I understand that's already been happening in certain States (mine, for one) where tollway transponder records have been subpoenaed.
And it's getting worse. Many large corporations (Pepsico, for example) are installing foreign nationals as CEOs. Presumably that's because it will eliminate any vestige of concern for the citizenry that those corporations supposedly serve.
Your sig notwithstanding, your English is excellent by the way.
and civil liberties in this country, and if this plan makes you nervous, there is one ray of hope in all this. Federal law enforcement has a dismal record of implementing such sophisticated database systems. The FBI, for example, has spent billions and failed repeatedly. Not just law enforcement, either: the IRS and the FAA have both spent enormous sums on failed systems upgrades and botched implementations. I have the feeling this will be no different ... although that doesn't mean it won't be a real problem, privacy-wise, regardless of its (unfounded, unproven and probably worthless) utility as an antiterrorism tool. Furthermore, given law enforcement's proven inability to maintain accurate and auditable records, its unwillingness to correct any errors, and the effect such errors have on the populace (the TSA's no-fly list comes to mind) it's clear that the Feds should never be allowed to operate such a system.
Terrorism is an evil enterprise, true enough. But this isn't all that far behind.
You're arguing against a strawman.
No, I'm not, and if you read the rest of my post, you'd note that I said I wasn't arguing against accountability. But I don't see that removing the corporate shield completely is a viable solution, which is what you seem to be arguing for.
And as it happens, that shield is neither absolute nor perfect, nor was it ever intended to be. CEOs that cross the line do get brought down.
Too big to jail? Corporation size could use some downward pressure.
Depends, and what I said doesn't just apply to the likes of an IBM or a General Motors.
... should he be imprisoned for that one employee's misdeeds?
Suppose you have a company of fifty people, and one of them does something illegal without the knowledge of the owner. Should the guy that built that business from the ground up, busted his ass for ten years, took out a second mortgage in order to meet payroll when times were tough
I'm not arguing against accountability for upper management, but like most things there has to be a balance struck.
This is MAJOR fraud in the medical/pharmaceutical industry. Merck and Elsevier need to be shut completely down for this bullshit.
Or, alternatively, start killing off Merck and Elsevier CEOs, NOW. Send the message that we will not tolerate this misleading information.
Well, that's probably a bit extreme, but it's certainly true that lies of this magnitude can result in people being hurt or killed. This isn't a joke.
That's why the corporate entity was created back in the 1890's, to avoid responsibility.
Well, and that's not entirely illegitimate. If you have a large corporation, there's no way a few individuals at the top can possibly monitor the behavior of hundreds or thousands of employees. Should a CEO go to prison because some low-level manager commits fraud? If that were the case, no-one would ever take the risk of forming and running a major business.
Nevertheless, the corporate veil can be pierced if the crime is of sufficient magnitude. These guys do get away with a lot of crap though, and maybe that particular bar should be lowered on them a little.
According to their wikipeia entry, they are entirely legit.
True! And it's also interesting to note that according to its own entry, Wikipedia is also legit.
If inability to reproduce qualifies one for the Darwin Awards, I think 90% of the Linux user-base can make it to the finals.
I don't believe a psychological aberration qualifies. You have to have basically destroyed your reproductive system.
That's the thing though, the fact that it was out of everyone else's backyard is what made it reasonably safe. Put it in a far removed location and you minimize the risk of a) it interfering with the current population and b) a future population stumbling across it by accident.
I'm sure that Larry Niven would probably agree with you.
h.264 is not bait and switch. do you really hate paying people for their work that much?
Yes it is, and yes I do, especially when it comes to "intellectual property" holders milking what are essentially commodity technologies.
And once more, could you people stop saying there is a Greek word "Andros" that means man?
Well, actually I didn't.
"Aim that at me and I'll kill you." -- Jame Retief, "Retief's War"
That has GOT to be one of the best multi-book characters in Sci-Fi. Sure, the stories are a bit pulpy (okay, they're a LOT pulpy, and quite camp), but they're fun "Pulp (sci)-Fiction."
Couldn't agree more. I've read them all (a couple more than once) and have them all still in a box somewhere. Don't have enough shelf space to hold them my whole science fiction collection, unfortunately. Besides, Mr. Magnan warned me that the five-eyed little sticky-fingers will steal them when I'm not looking (that was my best 407A attempt-at-humor.)
I also know that if they're not terminally ill, it can and should be prevented.
Care to back up that assertion of moral authority? My body, my choice.
Nonsense. People that truly want to commit suicide will do it if they can. There's nothing you can do about it, and odds are, you'll never know anything until after it happens.
That's not the case with most attempted suicides, so this is NOT a "my body, my choice" scenario. An untimely (or even a timely) death has effects upon others that go far beyond the one individual that died. The one who suicided is beyond caring, but many other people can be damaged or destroyed by their "choice". Unless you are a completely isolated individual with no-one for whom you care (or who cares about you) then taking your own life is a selfish, destructive act. Most of us are not islands and while we may not see any value in our continued existence, others probably do.
Look, just because a person isn't able to perceive any solution to their problems other than suicide does not imply that that is the answer they truly want! If you really want to help them, give them another option, another choice. Don't just stand by while they snuff themselves out.
In any event, if someone reaches out to you and you do nothing, then you are an insufficient person. Do the rest of humanity a favor and off yourself first.
We won't stop you. It's your choice, after all.