And since they're apple, the fact that another company (some networking equipment firm no one's ever heard of) had already thought up and marketed an iPhone is no problem whatsoever.
If you think that was sarcasm, head over to the ars forums and check the rabid response elicited when someone asks a question about plugging a switch into the drop in a conference room because multiple presenters need a wired connection.
Professional IT staff seem to get more bitter and hostile to the users daring to question their all-knowingness the more years in the industry they get. I'm glad I got out and into coding before I ever hit that level.
I think a good list to make would have been "states where more than (%50|75%) of the population falls within the zone" There's not too many people in the gray areas of a lot of the states that aren't completely covered.
While it's phrased somewhat trollishly, parent has an excellent point. The ACLU tends to defend only those portions of the constitution they find convenient. (like nearly everyone else in the country)
Imagine the fits they'd have if the same sort of restrictions and red tape placed on gun ownership were applied to say....exercising religions other than Christianity.
There's probably a good argument to be made about the 2nd amendment being the beachhead for the erosion of the bill of rights - it was certainly being smacked around long before the gov't. had the convenient bogeyman of terrorism in its arsenal. Once they took that out in the name of public safety, it became more palatable for assembly, speech, etc. to go by the wayside.
While I'm glad to have the ACLU around to defend 95% of the constitution, unless they take a big change of course, there's always going to be a need for another org. to be there to defend that pesky 2nd amendment they wish would just go away.
Are we going to start seeing frontpage articles here on slashdot when all the other notebook manufacturers come out with new models?
Please, be the one site that doesn't feed into the "omg apple news must be reported WITHIN 30 SECONDS" mentality. It's a glorified press release. With all the crap apple as a company pulls that's anti-developer and anti-consumer, does/. really need to be yet another extension of their marketing dept?
I'm honestly a bit confused by all this - Record companies seem to have no problem paying artists less than the statutory royalties via one-sided contracts. Apple has contracts with the record companies saying they get x per track/album sold.
Near as I can tell, this bill will just change the "default" royalties.
A direct contract with the copyright holder (nearly always the record company) tends to bypass this sort of thing.
It's a bias you *always* have to account for in articles about public health, unless they come from the most unbiased clinical sources possible. (and even then, summaries by mass media usually throw the abuse moniker in)
To a large portion of the media/"public health" professionals, any use of an illegal substance, even moderate and responsible, is "abuse". These are the same people who define 5 drinks in 24 hours as a "binge".
because the "movement" won't be in office. The politician will.
"Yes we can" is a crap soundbite that sways people who listen to crap soundbites, and it also has the advantage of allowing every (potential) voter to fill in their own definition of what "we" can do, while sticking the polit. with zero accountability.
"I won't raise your taxes", or "I won't attempt to further restrict the right to bear arms" would be widely regarded as a campaign promise, and would be damaging if broken.
If you say nothing of substance, it's harder to be accused of lying.
This doesn't necessarily mean any use of "we" is bad, but your chosen examples are vastly different statements.
You may feel the commerce clause forbids use taxes, but they're on the books in damn near every state, and it'd be up to you to spend years in court fighting your state revenue service to prove it's unconstitutional.
More disturbing to me is the fact that he overruled a jury.
From TFA: " On June 12, a jury in the Alameda County lawsuit ruled in favor of Sprint Nextel, determining that its customers who canceled their service early had breached their contracts with the company and that early termination fees were warranted.
But in overruling that decision, Sabraw said the jurors appear to have erred in assuming the fees were valid, and she took issue with the way Sprint Nextel determined that its customers owed the fees."
Here's what I'm saying: Anyone with the power to ruin your life just by their word against yours should not be trusted.
Doesn't mean they're all bad people, but just like most police approach every traffic stop being aware of the fact someone could be waiting in the driver's seat with intent to harm them, every citizen should approach every encounter with the police knowing there are bad cops out there and they may be at risk.
This won't change until officers start getting prosecuted for swearing false statements, and the "good" ones stop covering for the "bad" ones.
If you've got the time, I highly recommend watching these two videos before you ever consider trusting a police officer:
I think it's the reverse - since we're near the bottom, people are left with the case where the only competitive broandband ISP in their area is comcast.
They get to choose between comcast and their shenanigans at nominal speeds of 6-10mbps, or DSL and it typical lack at somewhere around 1/5 the speed. It'd be one thing if there were two otherwise identical broadband choices, and one did the "reasonable network management" game, and people didn't switch, but as things are it's very apples to oranges.
2. All the old common carrier rules went out the window with the internet. Not by law or anything, but just look at all the poking around in your data ISP's do nowadays. If they haven't lost CC protection for it yet, I doubt they ever will.
"Stole" bandwidth? did he? I mean if he was using botnets, maybe. But I checked the article on his sentencing and it doesn't mention that. You're not going to imply sending people email they don't want is somehow theft, are you? That's even more specious than applying that word to copyright infringement.
They're violating the copyright of whoever wrote the crack, but of course if said individual came forth to file a claim, they'd just end up with a countersuit for writing it in the first place.
It's like stealing from a drug dealer, only without the threat of violence.
They can't fund themselves from *fines* This is specifically why they call it a fee. (read any one of the numerous articles about the failed $1k speeding ticket experiment - it's how I became aware of the very important legal distinction between fines and fees when dealing with this area)
The fact that it goes to "other agencies" is irrelevant. If 50 dollars from the fee goes to fund the parks department, the city/county/whatever can take another 50 dollars of tax money that would have gone to fund the parks, and put it towards other things, like the court, police force, or whatever else it pleases. The effect is the same: There is an incentive for local governments to set speed limits based on things other than sound engineering surveys, and use the enforcement of these politically set speed limits to generate revenue.
I do recall one instance where some town hall lackey was dumb enough to end up on record saying speed limits were lowered to help with a budget deficit, but I can't find it at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
And since they're apple, the fact that another company (some networking equipment firm no one's ever heard of) had already thought up and marketed an iPhone is no problem whatsoever.
I can see how that would come into play at the CNET UK offices.
If you think that was sarcasm, head over to the ars forums and check the rabid response elicited when someone asks a question about plugging a switch into the drop in a conference room because multiple presenters need a wired connection.
Professional IT staff seem to get more bitter and hostile to the users daring to question their all-knowingness the more years in the industry they get. I'm glad I got out and into coding before I ever hit that level.
I think a good list to make would have been "states where more than (%50|75%) of the population falls within the zone" There's not too many people in the gray areas of a lot of the states that aren't completely covered.
While it's phrased somewhat trollishly, parent has an excellent point. The ACLU tends to defend only those portions of the constitution they find convenient. (like nearly everyone else in the country)
Imagine the fits they'd have if the same sort of restrictions and red tape placed on gun ownership were applied to say....exercising religions other than Christianity.
There's probably a good argument to be made about the 2nd amendment being the beachhead for the erosion of the bill of rights - it was certainly being smacked around long before the gov't. had the convenient bogeyman of terrorism in its arsenal. Once they took that out in the name of public safety, it became more palatable for assembly, speech, etc. to go by the wayside.
While I'm glad to have the ACLU around to defend 95% of the constitution, unless they take a big change of course, there's always going to be a need for another org. to be there to defend that pesky 2nd amendment they wish would just go away.
Slashdot poster with thing for Asians?
Where's the moderator option for "cliche"?
Your personal details *are* being made quite transparent and open here.
Are we going to start seeing frontpage articles here on slashdot when all the other notebook manufacturers come out with new models?
Please, be the one site that doesn't feed into the "omg apple news must be reported WITHIN 30 SECONDS" mentality. It's a glorified press release. With all the crap apple as a company pulls that's anti-developer and anti-consumer, does /. really need to be yet another extension of their marketing dept?
I'm honestly a bit confused by all this - Record companies seem to have no problem paying artists less than the statutory royalties via one-sided contracts. Apple has contracts with the record companies saying they get x per track/album sold.
Near as I can tell, this bill will just change the "default" royalties.
A direct contract with the copyright holder (nearly always the record company) tends to bypass this sort of thing.
Great, now mirrors will be renamed to "Improvised Reflective Devices"
It's a bias you *always* have to account for in articles about public health, unless they come from the most unbiased clinical sources possible. (and even then, summaries by mass media usually throw the abuse moniker in)
To a large portion of the media/"public health" professionals, any use of an illegal substance, even moderate and responsible, is "abuse". These are the same people who define 5 drinks in 24 hours as a "binge".
because the "movement" won't be in office. The politician will.
"Yes we can" is a crap soundbite that sways people who listen to crap soundbites, and it also has the advantage of allowing every (potential) voter to fill in their own definition of what "we" can do, while sticking the polit. with zero accountability.
"I won't raise your taxes", or "I won't attempt to further restrict the right to bear arms" would be widely regarded as a campaign promise, and would be damaging if broken.
If you say nothing of substance, it's harder to be accused of lying.
This doesn't necessarily mean any use of "we" is bad, but your chosen examples are vastly different statements.
Of course they do - considering Most of them have tried it themselves at some point or another.
I have a bit of a problem with vendors sending my information to people I did not request them to. Actually, I lied - it's more than a bit.
You may feel the commerce clause forbids use taxes, but they're on the books in damn near every state, and it'd be up to you to spend years in court fighting your state revenue service to prove it's unconstitutional.
Two Media converters. If you can run ethernet over it, it's good.
I only just got back from defcon 16, and already I missed 20?
More disturbing to me is the fact that he overruled a jury.
From TFA:
" On June 12, a jury in the Alameda County lawsuit ruled in favor of Sprint Nextel, determining that its customers who canceled their service early had breached their contracts with the company and that early termination fees were warranted.
But in overruling that decision, Sabraw said the jurors appear to have erred in assuming the fees were valid, and she took issue with the way Sprint Nextel determined that its customers owed the fees."
Here's what I'm saying: Anyone with the power to ruin your life just by their word against yours should not be trusted.
Doesn't mean they're all bad people, but just like most police approach every traffic stop being aware of the fact someone could be waiting in the driver's seat with intent to harm them, every citizen should approach every encounter with the police knowing there are bad cops out there and they may be at risk.
This won't change until officers start getting prosecuted for swearing false statements, and the "good" ones stop covering for the "bad" ones.
If you've got the time, I highly recommend watching these two videos before you ever consider trusting a police officer:
http://www.hackaday.com/2008/06/16/dont-talk-to-the-police/
I think it's the reverse - since we're near the bottom, people are left with the case where the only competitive broandband ISP in their area is comcast.
They get to choose between comcast and their shenanigans at nominal speeds of 6-10mbps, or DSL and it typical lack at somewhere around 1/5 the speed. It'd be one thing if there were two otherwise identical broadband choices, and one did the "reasonable network management" game, and people didn't switch, but as things are it's very apples to oranges.
1. It's lose.
2. All the old common carrier rules went out the window with the internet. Not by law or anything, but just look at all the poking around in your data ISP's do nowadays. If they haven't lost CC protection for it yet, I doubt they ever will.
"Stole" bandwidth? did he? I mean if he was using botnets, maybe. But I checked the article on his sentencing and it doesn't mention that. You're not going to imply sending people email they don't want is somehow theft, are you? That's even more specious than applying that word to copyright infringement.
Theft has a definition. Please look it up.
Who the hell runs from a 2 year bid at a club fed?
They're violating the copyright of whoever wrote the crack, but of course if said individual came forth to file a claim, they'd just end up with a countersuit for writing it in the first place.
It's like stealing from a drug dealer, only without the threat of violence.
They can't fund themselves from *fines* This is specifically why they call it a fee. (read any one of the numerous articles about the failed $1k speeding ticket experiment - it's how I became aware of the very important legal distinction between fines and fees when dealing with this area)
The fact that it goes to "other agencies" is irrelevant. If 50 dollars from the fee goes to fund the parks department, the city/county/whatever can take another 50 dollars of tax money that would have gone to fund the parks, and put it towards other things, like the court, police force, or whatever else it pleases. The effect is the same: There is an incentive for local governments to set speed limits based on things other than sound engineering surveys, and use the enforcement of these politically set speed limits to generate revenue.
here's one example: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20041114/ai_n10042164
I do recall one instance where some town hall lackey was dumb enough to end up on record saying speed limits were lowered to help with a budget deficit, but I can't find it at the moment.