I tried computing the percentage of Android-powered-phone sales growth since 2007, but I kept running into PosInf errors, whatever that means. Sorry. I'll try harder next time.
And basically this is saying that records INTERPOL passes back are free from being intercepted by anybody in the feds who want them. If the feds need them, the correct call in your example should be to the LAPD.
Think about this in context. We just had a near-disaster of a plane exploding in Detroit and US airport screening is worthless to block this threat because the attacker boarded elsewhere. So, the response is to give INTERPOL agents here more power, and most likely the hope is that our INTERPOL guys elsewhere get the same powers so they can do their job there are we don't have to worry about who's being flown in here.
This is really a change of a default assumption than freedom to do anything without penalty. If INTERPOL starts going crazy, it only takes a presidential signature to take this exception back.
So if the INTERPOL guy says "I won't, and I don't have to!" and the fed guy says "It's a matter of national security!"... all he needs to do is get the message up to the top of the chain-of-command, and suddenly that fed guy can grab whatever info he wants.
Yeah, high standard, but it's not going to change things much.
And so far, they've been holding anybody who makes a copyrighted work available as any downloadable file (over HTTP, FTP, or any flavor of P2P) you're doing so willingly. Nobody's ever been able to prove that they unwillingly installed such file-sharing programs.
Yeah, but NewYorkCountyLawyer seems to have a "right of way" to go straight to the homepage based on past contributions. That user provides "play by play" of the cases where somebody dares challenge the RIAA, as the result is either "Somebody else lost on this so don't bother!" or "RIAA loses again! New argument to use against them is..."
The panic is that kids think that pictures given privately to their friends are going to be kept that way... nope. One wrong friend who publishes it and there's no end to it.
Look what happened to Vanessa Hudgens. She was a Disney star with a song out and part of the High School Musical cast. A picture she knew was being taken gets out, and suddenly it's a career-ended.
We're already on the 3rd, about to roll over to the 4th day of the year. (And some of our international readers are already there.) We're still doing year-end pieces? CES can't come soon enough.
I tend to use my "rebate cards" at the doctor's office... they're one of the few places that aren't subject to a sales tax and the price doesn't end with 99 cents.
This is law in many places... leave a balance in a bank account and fail to respond to any correspondence or make any transactions, and that money is transferred to the government who will publish your name in a massive newspaper insert, and then give it back to you if you claim it by proving the social security number the account was under is yours, and if that times out it goes to the government to do whatever they want with it.
Gift cards in many places have taken up the retailers on "if this fee is not allowed by law" to kill off inactivity fees. You now have many years or until the store shuts its doors for good (even during a post-bankruptcy liquidation that operates under the store's name) to use that money.
So, why does AT&T and the other phone companies think they can get away with voiding cards they don't hear from for three years and keeping the money? It's an unclaimed balance, and businesses aren't allowed to profit from such things in many other cases... what's the difference?
They're technically breaking their local law by running these scams... but they're one of the leading industries so the government can't afford to shut them down. Since there's no hope you finding them if you go there so they feel safe from you, and certainty that they'd be arrested if they come here so you're safe from them finding you... let the fun and games begin.
Apple has made it's trademark in limiting the number of products their software runs on, so there's fewer possible configs to support. iPhone has had one screen size its entire life, and the iPod Touch has always been an iPhone without the cellular modem stuff which is pretty nice if you're often around WiFi and have non-smart phone on you.
Google is open sourcing its phone operating system... so any provider can call up any hardware maker they want to make a GooglePhone. They're only making a device of their own out of frustration that nobody has given their OS the hardware they'd like to see with it. They don't care if this model sinks or swims... they just want to get their ads in front of as many eyeballs and ears as possible.
Microsoft is doing their typical commercial license thing... and hasn't really been a big player in this industry.
Nokia and RIM are out their with a platform they own from the ground up. The problem with them is they can't really attract 3rd party app developers with the high number of screen sizes and other configs out there. You haven't heard much from their app developers, do they even exist?
AT&T is actually a roaming partner of T-Mobile in markets where T-Mobile has no towers, AT&T is on the frequencies they use elsewhere, and therefore can't take customers who get their bills in such zip codes. So, you use AT&T's network and T-Mobile doesn't charge extra for that if you're on a nationwide plan... and who isn't these days?
In the early days of cell phones, I used to take a CellularOne phone into NH from MA, and it would say "Would you like to enter a credit card to use BellAtlantic NYNEX Mobile?" I then went to college in New York, signed up for the national plan, and could roam onto the other networks with no charge. My phone would say "HOME" and "AWAY" but it wouldn't make a difference to me.
AT&T has too many smartphone customers on their network already... just look at the complaints from the iPhone users where there is 3G coverage, but the network's too congested. You haven't seen the "AT&T is the network with the fewest dropped calls!" ads lately, have you?
88.1 mHz to 107.9 mHz requires a much smaller antenna than anything in the gHz-plus range. Add to that the fact that the FM band only spans 20mHz so you don't need a very agile tuner.
Now, you want fifteen times that range, and also ten times the frequency... oh boy are you in for a much bigger antenna that's going to weigh down your device... not to mention you're not going to see anything in the 1800 mHz range that is ever going to be interesting.
Notice that the iPhone on AT&T has to carry AT&T-only cellular chips that take up so much space, there's room to put another 32GB of flash memory in its place in the same shell, the call that the 64 GB iPod Touch. If you want the same form factor but carry two network chips, one of which will almost certainly never be used, you're going to displace the other memory chip or end up with a bigger device... and that's not a phone to write home about.
We've seen what happens to Google/YouTube when they do something China doesn't like... they end up getting redirected to Chinese government-controlled competitors like Baidu. That story has run so many times we almost automatically scream "Dupe!" when that happens.
You've got to comply with the governments all around the world if you want to offer a truely worldwide site.
It doesn't work here either. The US runs to the WTO whenever there's a problem with other places violating the rules of "free trade", but in the Internet Gambling case team USA lost by being told that international sites should be allowed to offer gambling services... yet the USA has ignored that ruling, setting the precedent that other countries can just ignore decisions they don't agree with.
"Free trade" has become another meaningless political phrase... next please.
Slashdot Mirror
I tried computing the percentage of Android-powered-phone sales growth since 2007, but I kept running into PosInf errors, whatever that means. Sorry. I'll try harder next time.
And basically this is saying that records INTERPOL passes back are free from being intercepted by anybody in the feds who want them. If the feds need them, the correct call in your example should be to the LAPD.
Political party X screwed us, vote Y!
Seems like we've only got two valid choices here. Which is the one we hate and the one we like again?
Think about this in context. We just had a near-disaster of a plane exploding in Detroit and US airport screening is worthless to block this threat because the attacker boarded elsewhere. So, the response is to give INTERPOL agents here more power, and most likely the hope is that our INTERPOL guys elsewhere get the same powers so they can do their job there are we don't have to worry about who's being flown in here.
Not quite sure this story got filed right. Nothing to do with our online rights... this has more to do with all our rights.
This is really a change of a default assumption than freedom to do anything without penalty. If INTERPOL starts going crazy, it only takes a presidential signature to take this exception back.
So if the INTERPOL guy says "I won't, and I don't have to!" and the fed guy says "It's a matter of national security!"... all he needs to do is get the message up to the top of the chain-of-command, and suddenly that fed guy can grab whatever info he wants.
Yeah, high standard, but it's not going to change things much.
And so far, they've been holding anybody who makes a copyrighted work available as any downloadable file (over HTTP, FTP, or any flavor of P2P) you're doing so willingly. Nobody's ever been able to prove that they unwillingly installed such file-sharing programs.
That's the argument being made translated into slash-speak... let's see if that holds water.
RIAA/MPAA's classic settlement offer is whatever-you-have plus a dollar. Their intent is to cause a "I lost everything, don't do what I did!" example.
Yeah, but NewYorkCountyLawyer seems to have a "right of way" to go straight to the homepage based on past contributions. That user provides "play by play" of the cases where somebody dares challenge the RIAA, as the result is either "Somebody else lost on this so don't bother!" or "RIAA loses again! New argument to use against them is..."
And I don't even see how that credential has anything to do with this "Year's dumbest stories" piece.
Malformed XML that doesn't update regularly? Not useful.
The panic is that kids think that pictures given privately to their friends are going to be kept that way... nope. One wrong friend who publishes it and there's no end to it.
Look what happened to Vanessa Hudgens. She was a Disney star with a song out and part of the High School Musical cast. A picture she knew was being taken gets out, and suddenly it's a career-ended.
We're already on the 3rd, about to roll over to the 4th day of the year. (And some of our international readers are already there.) We're still doing year-end pieces? CES can't come soon enough.
I tend to use my "rebate cards" at the doctor's office... they're one of the few places that aren't subject to a sales tax and the price doesn't end with 99 cents.
This is law in many places... leave a balance in a bank account and fail to respond to any correspondence or make any transactions, and that money is transferred to the government who will publish your name in a massive newspaper insert, and then give it back to you if you claim it by proving the social security number the account was under is yours, and if that times out it goes to the government to do whatever they want with it.
Gift cards in many places have taken up the retailers on "if this fee is not allowed by law" to kill off inactivity fees. You now have many years or until the store shuts its doors for good (even during a post-bankruptcy liquidation that operates under the store's name) to use that money.
So, why does AT&T and the other phone companies think they can get away with voiding cards they don't hear from for three years and keeping the money? It's an unclaimed balance, and businesses aren't allowed to profit from such things in many other cases... what's the difference?
It's possible to hit all four GSM bands used world wide... but have you seen the bricks such phones are compared to the relatively slim iPhone?
Let's make a 10-page graphic novel and talk about it on /.! That's sure to make a profit... for our web host!
They're technically breaking their local law by running these scams... but they're one of the leading industries so the government can't afford to shut them down. Since there's no hope you finding them if you go there so they feel safe from you, and certainty that they'd be arrested if they come here so you're safe from them finding you... let the fun and games begin.
Apple has made it's trademark in limiting the number of products their software runs on, so there's fewer possible configs to support. iPhone has had one screen size its entire life, and the iPod Touch has always been an iPhone without the cellular modem stuff which is pretty nice if you're often around WiFi and have non-smart phone on you.
Google is open sourcing its phone operating system... so any provider can call up any hardware maker they want to make a GooglePhone. They're only making a device of their own out of frustration that nobody has given their OS the hardware they'd like to see with it. They don't care if this model sinks or swims... they just want to get their ads in front of as many eyeballs and ears as possible.
Microsoft is doing their typical commercial license thing... and hasn't really been a big player in this industry.
Nokia and RIM are out their with a platform they own from the ground up. The problem with them is they can't really attract 3rd party app developers with the high number of screen sizes and other configs out there. You haven't heard much from their app developers, do they even exist?
AT&T is actually a roaming partner of T-Mobile in markets where T-Mobile has no towers, AT&T is on the frequencies they use elsewhere, and therefore can't take customers who get their bills in such zip codes. So, you use AT&T's network and T-Mobile doesn't charge extra for that if you're on a nationwide plan... and who isn't these days?
In the early days of cell phones, I used to take a CellularOne phone into NH from MA, and it would say "Would you like to enter a credit card to use BellAtlantic NYNEX Mobile?" I then went to college in New York, signed up for the national plan, and could roam onto the other networks with no charge. My phone would say "HOME" and "AWAY" but it wouldn't make a difference to me.
AT&T has too many smartphone customers on their network already... just look at the complaints from the iPhone users where there is 3G coverage, but the network's too congested. You haven't seen the "AT&T is the network with the fewest dropped calls!" ads lately, have you?
You apparently never studied RF physics.
88.1 mHz to 107.9 mHz requires a much smaller antenna than anything in the gHz-plus range. Add to that the fact that the FM band only spans 20mHz so you don't need a very agile tuner.
Now, you want fifteen times that range, and also ten times the frequency... oh boy are you in for a much bigger antenna that's going to weigh down your device... not to mention you're not going to see anything in the 1800 mHz range that is ever going to be interesting.
Notice that the iPhone on AT&T has to carry AT&T-only cellular chips that take up so much space, there's room to put another 32GB of flash memory in its place in the same shell, the call that the 64 GB iPod Touch. If you want the same form factor but carry two network chips, one of which will almost certainly never be used, you're going to displace the other memory chip or end up with a bigger device... and that's not a phone to write home about.
We've seen what happens to Google/YouTube when they do something China doesn't like... they end up getting redirected to Chinese government-controlled competitors like Baidu. That story has run so many times we almost automatically scream "Dupe!" when that happens.
You've got to comply with the governments all around the world if you want to offer a truely worldwide site.
It doesn't work here either. The US runs to the WTO whenever there's a problem with other places violating the rules of "free trade", but in the Internet Gambling case team USA lost by being told that international sites should be allowed to offer gambling services... yet the USA has ignored that ruling, setting the precedent that other countries can just ignore decisions they don't agree with.
"Free trade" has become another meaningless political phrase... next please.