Seriously... they're charging people for SMS both coming AND going? And people are actually so ignorant they tolerate it? I don't often resort to txtspeak, but OMG....
I don't even own a cellphone - destitute Luddite here - so I only use the SMS service via a laptop or desktop or Pocket PC. I recently dumped my old D-Link Skype-to-POTS device and got an Obihai ATA that works with Google Voice, but I can't yet text from my house cordless phones; some expert ATA hacker may yet figger a way to make the Obihai boxes handle that, too.
It's sad that courts feel this need to qualify their rulings in such a ridiculous fashion, and ruin their value in the process. Do they fear the corporate and political party lynch mobs, or do they really lack confidence in the substance of the rulings themselves?
Yeah, yeah, so TFS did link to the ARSTechnica article and I didn't notice it. My point, per my comment's title, is still the same; by itself, as a legal precedent for eliminating software patents, this ruling is useless because of the gaping irrational exception the ruling allowed. The summary ignored that aspect in favor of confirmation bias.
Too bad the submitter didn't read the ARSTechnica article about the same ruling; it was a more impartial analysis and demonstrated how, even though the ruling appears to favor the ultimate abolition of software patents, it's such an illogical ruling that it probably won't really help to serve that purpose, other than perhaps persuading other courts to think more critically about software patents. "Unless it's too complicated for a human to do the math"? Good grief.
But he offered his thoughts to Threatpost on the experience of being at the conference, what the attack by Anonymous has done to him and whether it's possible for the group to turn its attentions to more constructive pursuits.
For Aaron Barr, the definition of "constructive" begins and ends with making money... by whatever means available.
I suspect that Jefferson and some of the other founders may have actually had a conversation about how to leave the door open enough in the future for others to be able to do what they were doing. I wonder what Jefferson would think of our tenure as custodians of what they started. Would Jefferson be an NRA member? Would he think our free speech was free enough? Would he applaud the Citizens United ruling?
So if the American Colonies had been subject to the same restrictions to free speech that we have now, would the Revolution have even taken place? Did the entire process in fact take place without the lives of a single British citizen or politician being publicly threatened? Is it possible these current restrictions exist precisely to protect the ruling class and prevent or forestall the organization of some future revolution? If a ruling class becomes so criminally tyrannical that the only practical means to change the system they control is by killing the people who control it, don't restrictions on free speech that criminalize discussions of those actions also restrict the ability to carry them out?
That's what happens when there's no Eisenhower figure to step up and generate consensus. Yeah, people thought Obama was gonna be that type of figure, but it's not happening. (Eisenhower was a Republican, though perhaps Republicans were less cartoonish back then and acknowledged that taxes and "socialization" were practical for some things.)
Since it will be shared infrastructure like our roads, the public should retain ownership rather than some for-profit corporation, and the contractors we hire to build it should be thus paid with a tax or bond. Of course the same should have been done with telecom infrastructure (and then we'd have true neutrality of the wires).
I'd mod this up, if I hadn't instigated this slice of the conversation. I cackle when I read about physicists confidently extrapolating from string theory or dark matter when those notions are anything but certain themselves. There are some days when even the Big Bang still smacks of religion to me, the way some experts treat it as a fait accompli. It worries me that these days, in archaeology, physics, astronomy, and astrophysics especially, we're stepping far over the fine line between what is truly verifiable and what is mere wild conjecture.
Slashdot Mirror
(That was satire/parody/tongue-in-cheek, which I hope should be obvious but there's always that one jerk with a knee....)
I'm not picky. I'll accept yer props even if yer not a nigger.
Seriously... they're charging people for SMS both coming AND going? And people are actually so ignorant they tolerate it? I don't often resort to txtspeak, but OMG....
The word 'connotations' has negative... connotations. 'Vibes' should be used instead'.
That is a small problem, I guess. ;-)
I don't even own a cellphone - destitute Luddite here - so I only use the SMS service via a laptop or desktop or Pocket PC. I recently dumped my old D-Link Skype-to-POTS device and got an Obihai ATA that works with Google Voice, but I can't yet text from my house cordless phones; some expert ATA hacker may yet figger a way to make the Obihai boxes handle that, too.
Get Google Voice. It's free... at least for the time being. If Google ever dares charge even a thin dime for them, they'll probably face a mutiny.
I'll bet that one is balance-challenged.
It's sad that courts feel this need to qualify their rulings in such a ridiculous fashion, and ruin their value in the process. Do they fear the corporate and political party lynch mobs, or do they really lack confidence in the substance of the rulings themselves?
Yeah, yeah, so TFS did link to the ARSTechnica article and I didn't notice it. My point, per my comment's title, is still the same; by itself, as a legal precedent for eliminating software patents, this ruling is useless because of the gaping irrational exception the ruling allowed. The summary ignored that aspect in favor of confirmation bias.
Too bad the submitter didn't read the ARSTechnica article about the same ruling; it was a more impartial analysis and demonstrated how, even though the ruling appears to favor the ultimate abolition of software patents, it's such an illogical ruling that it probably won't really help to serve that purpose, other than perhaps persuading other courts to think more critically about software patents. "Unless it's too complicated for a human to do the math"? Good grief.
But he offered his thoughts to Threatpost on the experience of being at the conference, what the attack by Anonymous has done to him and whether it's possible for the group to turn its attentions to more constructive pursuits.
For Aaron Barr, the definition of "constructive" begins and ends with making money... by whatever means available.
Ouch! I need to triple the dosage....
Agreed. I'm not sure why I picked the synonym when both are in my vocabulary.
I suspect that Jefferson and some of the other founders may have actually had a conversation about how to leave the door open enough in the future for others to be able to do what they were doing. I wonder what Jefferson would think of our tenure as custodians of what they started. Would Jefferson be an NRA member? Would he think our free speech was free enough? Would he applaud the Citizens United ruling?
I was alluding to that.
So if the American Colonies had been subject to the same restrictions to free speech that we have now, would the Revolution have even taken place? Did the entire process in fact take place without the lives of a single British citizen or politician being publicly threatened? Is it possible these current restrictions exist precisely to protect the ruling class and prevent or forestall the organization of some future revolution? If a ruling class becomes so criminally tyrannical that the only practical means to change the system they control is by killing the people who control it, don't restrictions on free speech that criminalize discussions of those actions also restrict the ability to carry them out?
Thanks for your interest in Firefox 6
We aren't quite finished qualifying Firefox 6 yet. You should check out the latest Beta.
When we're all done with Firefox 6 it will show up on Firefox.com.
Awesome! I'll be packing and text you.
I would myself, but he said nothing about allowing cats to tag along.
That's what happens when there's no Eisenhower figure to step up and generate consensus. Yeah, people thought Obama was gonna be that type of figure, but it's not happening. (Eisenhower was a Republican, though perhaps Republicans were less cartoonish back then and acknowledged that taxes and "socialization" were practical for some things.)
... and queue the Libertarian rant in 5... 4... 3... 2....
Since it will be shared infrastructure like our roads, the public should retain ownership rather than some for-profit corporation, and the contractors we hire to build it should be thus paid with a tax or bond. Of course the same should have been done with telecom infrastructure (and then we'd have true neutrality of the wires).
I rest my case!
I'd mod this up, if I hadn't instigated this slice of the conversation. I cackle when I read about physicists confidently extrapolating from string theory or dark matter when those notions are anything but certain themselves. There are some days when even the Big Bang still smacks of religion to me, the way some experts treat it as a fait accompli. It worries me that these days, in archaeology, physics, astronomy, and astrophysics especially, we're stepping far over the fine line between what is truly verifiable and what is mere wild conjecture.
"... our higher-level cognitive functioning arrests and overrides such reactions."
You should meet my neighbors.