Treos are notorious for being buggy, unstable, and spontaneously rebooting or requiring frequent reboots.
I had a Treo 600 from Cingular and I can speak for that firsthand. During the course of the day, it must have rebooted at least 5 times -- many times in the middle of a call.
I won't speak for others, but I won't tolerate a smartphone that behaves like Windows 2.0. A smartphone must be stable -- like an alarm clock, TV, etc.
I sent it back to Palm and went to a Blackberry. No stability problems and it just flat out worked.
"My current carrier doesn't provide many services you can get in other areas, such as video transfer and texting outside the local area. I'm not talking about extra-cost, they simply don't offer it."
So switch to Verizon -- they have good coverage in 59230.
"Even in the US there's no anonymous. When you recharge an anon-registered Tracfone, you are on-camera during the purchase of the card at the register.
"labelling it "doubletalk" sounds more like trying to justify criminal actions with obfiscation. Exactly how is what I said "doubletalk"? In what you quoted, I merely demonstrated how improvements in tools have made many different kinds of duplication much easier. Making the duplication easier does not make it more legal, if the duplication was illegal in the first place."
That's what I am talking about -- more doubletalk.
Let me make it real simple for you: The more easy -- actually, the less effort required -- to duplicate something, the less illegal it becomes.
We are closely approaching the point where things such as copying CDs, DVDs, etc. are almost NOT illegal (note: not legal, but not illegal either). I'm not talking about commercial copying -- I'm talking about personal use copying.
"If you could drop a diamond ring into a machine and get exact dupicates, sure that would be akin to getting exact duplicates of digital music files. But a chisel to cut a stone with is a tool. A grinding wheel is a more advanced tool that can accomplish the same task faster and more efficiently. A hand operated printing press is a tool that can be used in counterfeitting. A mechanical laser printer is a more advanced tool that makes the same task much easier and more efficient. A tape recorder with a microphone is a tool that can be used to copy music. A computer that can just reproduce unlimited copies of a single file is just a more advanced tool accomplishing the same task. Just because the tool is more advanced, that doesn't make the crime any less of a crime."
That sounds like the same doubletalk the British Government was giving the Colonies prior to the American Revolution.
"So you would steal passports, money, property deeds, stock certificates, jewelry, and other items that you COULD make an exact duplicate of and still leave the original intact? Because that is what it looks like you are saying."
How could you make "exact copies" of passports, jewelry, etc.???
"I'm over 18 and don't consider it theft. Copyright infringement, maybe, but not theft. It's like those goofy commercials they're putting at the beginning of DVDs - would you steal a car? Would you steal a purse? Would you steal a cell phone? No, I wouldn't steal any of those. But if I could make an exact duplicate copy of any of them, and the original was still intact, then damn straight I would!"
"I think that the website is a neat idea but I'd never use it, and I wouldn't encourage anyone else to use it. If you're going to use something to manage your passwords, it should be fully controlled by yourself. What's wrong with running a hash program on your own machine?"
So save the webpage to your machine, examine the source HTML so you know it is not sending any information remotely and then execute it locally on your machine.
"It in no way applies to reporters _ in any way, shape or form,"
"There are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order."
Now we hear:
"It in no way applies to reporters _ in any way, shape or form," said Mike Dawson, a senior policy adviser to DeWine, responding to an inquiry Friday afternoon. "If a technical fix is necessary, it will be made."
Patriot Act will only be used against terrorists? LIE.
Wiretaps require court order? LIE.
I never had sex with that women. LIE.
This law won't be used against reporters. LIE.
Apparently, quite a few people in the government think that sacrificing liberties is worth it if we potentially prevent another terrorist attack or save lives. Well, I don't. A lot of the founding fathers were willing to, and sacrificed their lives, in order to have freedon.
And what they need to do is fire up more "dark fiber". There is so much out there that excuses of the Internet getting bogged down because of BitTorrent are just downright silly.
DVD-RRM: Padlock BlueRay/HDDVD-DRM: Steel security door
More like this:
DVD-Video's CSS DRM: Rusted Twist-tie lock on a cardboard shack guarded by poodle.. Blu-Ray/HD DVD AACS DRM: Bank vault at Fort Knox guarded by US Marines.
"Just ask anyone who's tried to fight RIAA's subpoena's in John Doe lawsuits with that arguement; on a slight tangent, it appears that the most successful way to defeat those suits as the RIAA files them today is on grounds of improper joining; the RIAA joins random people together in a single action without any evidence of collusion or interaction between the various parties."
They do that to save filing fees -- sometimes the judge lets it slide.
However if he doesn't, what happens is the judge typically severs all but the 1st defendent and tells the plaintiff to refile each defendent under a seperate suit.
It's a win-win for the plaintiff: If it's not misjoined, it saves filing fees and attorney fees by sueing 5-10 people at once rather than 1. If it is misjoined because a defendent's attorney argues against improper joining, the plaintiff wins because it's costing the defendent money because he has to pay at attorney to do so. If it is misjoined, no big deal, they just refile seperately.
Remember the RIAA's suits aren't designed to generate money, they're designed to generate press. The press being if you're even remotely suspected of pirating music, you are gonna get sued silly.
"Why can't we, as an opensource community create a real completely decentralized p2p network? I have been thinking of doing this for a while and do have a lot of ideas for this. I have been online for 14 years and have seen a lot. After all we all know the problems with existing p2p networks from the past years"
I'd be willing to help! I have a lot of money, and access to high-speed internet connections and massive servers.
"What exactly is the DoJ "fishing" for exactly? Is there some information you believe that the DoJ is trying to obtain beyond anonymous usage data and statistics?"
[...]
Another reason for objecting to the subpoena, Google says in its brief authored by Al Gidari and Lisa Delehunt at the law firm of Perkins Coie, is that government lawyers might share the information with the FBI for criminal prosecution--say, of people who typed in search terms like "marijuana cultivation" or "directv hacking."
[...]
Even more than that, I see the DoJ using this information to go after "subversives", just like Nixon did.
"That's the DoJ's reply to Google's reply. Though I would recommend reading it, as they express the same puzzlement over Google's objections as I do."
"All of their arguements are contrived and nonsensical, and the only conclusion I can draw is that they've misinterpreted the information being requested by the subpoena. If this were Microsoft or Yahoo making these arguements you'd be asking what kind of crack they were smoking..."
Right. All of their lawyers are stupid.
Actually, that wouldn't be that hard to believe. Lawyers routinely routinely do and say outrageuous and unbelieveable things, but I don't see that in this case.
"So you're saying that because some people are dumbasses that nothing should be done about real terrorists or kiddie pornographers?"
No. What I am saying is that these "terrorist" (think Patriot Act) and "kiddie porn" laws shouldn't, but are routinely used by LEAs against NON-terrorists and NON-kiddie porners (against the spirit and intentions of the lawmakers) rather than real terrorists and real kiddie pornographers.
"Sure, let's go another round: I can't figure out how a request for anonymous usage data comprises their user's privacy."
First of all, like I wrote, the DoJ is not entitled to Google's information. It's THEIRS to do with as they wish.
Secondly, giving this "anonymous usage data" is a slippery slope and a fishing expedition. Let's say they get this "anoymous usage data", next time they come back and want a little more. Go read Google's reply to the DoJ's request... it's pretty well spelled out in there.
"I also can't figure out how they figure censorship is better than kiddy porn."
"Kiddie porn" is like "terrorism". It's one of those terms designed to elicit an emotional response without thinking. The problem is those words mean whatever the DoJ wants them to mean.
Shine a penlight laser up at a plane, you are a "terrorist." Have pictures of your 8 month old son taking a bath, you got "kiddie porn."
"Of course our "opinions" differ, given that Google is entangling itself in legal proceedings about it. Personally, I would think they'd have to be getting some pretty piss poor legal counsil to challenge this in the first place..."
And Google's council probably thinks you have a piss poor view of privacy rights and a obscenely psychotic and enflated opinion of what the DoJ's is entitled to.
"The DoJ does, indeed, have the legal right to compel Google to produce this information. The DoJ has the power to issue administrative subpoenas (as do several hundred other federal agencies). The subpoena must merely be "reasonable", in that it must be sought for information not in the DoJ possession, be relevent to the DoJ's investigation, and would not be considered an abuse of the court's process. Check, check, and check."
Google's attorneys disagree with the DoJ's (and apparently your) opinion that the subpoena is reasonable.
IOW, Google may have information not in the DoJ's possesion, the info may be relevant, however Google's attorneys are rightfully arguing that the DoJ has no legal right to obtain this information. It's Google's private info, not subjective to disclosure merely at the whim of the DoJ, unless Google consents and they don't. Unless this information has been obtained illegally, I see this subpoena being illegal and quashed.
Slashdot Mirror
Treos are notorious for being buggy, unstable, and spontaneously rebooting or requiring frequent reboots.
I had a Treo 600 from Cingular and I can speak for that firsthand. During the course of the day, it must have rebooted at least 5 times -- many times in the middle of a call.
I won't speak for others, but I won't tolerate a smartphone that behaves like Windows 2.0. A smartphone must be stable -- like an alarm clock, TV, etc.
I sent it back to Palm and went to a Blackberry. No stability problems and it just flat out worked.
You zealots need to get a life!
"My current carrier doesn't provide many services you can get in other areas, such as video transfer and texting outside the local area. I'm not talking about extra-cost, they simply don't offer it."
So switch to Verizon -- they have good coverage in 59230.
Don't top post. Email should be like driving a car/owning a gun -- you need to take a class first.
Sounds like someone that is writing HTML to be like a PDF.
Shouldn't matter the font you are using -- write valid HTML code and let the browser do its job rather than trying to force the formatting.
Not everywhere.
That's what I am talking about -- more doubletalk.
Let me make it real simple for you: The more easy -- actually, the less effort required -- to duplicate something, the less illegal it becomes.
We are closely approaching the point where things such as copying CDs, DVDs, etc. are almost NOT illegal (note: not legal, but not illegal either). I'm not talking about commercial copying -- I'm talking about personal use copying.
Hope that helps.
That sounds like the same doubletalk the British Government was giving the Colonies prior to the American Revolution.
How could you make "exact copies" of passports, jewelry, etc.???
As would I, regardless of what the law said.
"I think that the website is a neat idea but I'd never use it, and I wouldn't encourage anyone else to use it. If you're going to use something to manage your passwords, it should be fully controlled by yourself. What's wrong with running a hash program on your own machine?"
So save the webpage to your machine, examine the source HTML so you know it is not sending any information remotely and then execute it locally on your machine.
If linking to WaReZ is illegal, then that this is illegal only makes sense.
I hope they both get struck down as unconstitutional.
5DStuff.COM
Ever see the movie Blade: Trinity where the Feds try and seize the computers?
I wouldn't be upset if Google pulled a "Abraham Whistler" on them.
Google's records are none of their business and the courts shouldn't have standing to seize them.
Now we hear:
Patriot Act will only be used against terrorists? LIE.
Wiretaps require court order? LIE.
I never had sex with that women. LIE.
This law won't be used against reporters. LIE.
Apparently, quite a few people in the government think that sacrificing liberties is worth it if we potentially prevent another terrorist attack or save lives. Well, I don't. A lot of the founding fathers were willing to, and sacrificed their lives, in order to have freedon.
The new SBC, ATT, Bellsouth, Cingular, whatever will run fiber to my house like Verizon is doing.
Their current Project Lightspeed is dead before arrival.
Right.
And what they need to do is fire up more "dark fiber". There is so much out there that excuses of the Internet getting bogged down because of BitTorrent are just downright silly.
More like this:
DVD-Video's CSS DRM: Rusted Twist-tie lock on a cardboard shack guarded by poodle..
Blu-Ray/HD DVD AACS DRM: Bank vault at Fort Knox guarded by US Marines.
They do that to save filing fees -- sometimes the judge lets it slide.
However if he doesn't, what happens is the judge typically severs all but the 1st defendent and tells the plaintiff to refile each defendent under a seperate suit.
It's a win-win for the plaintiff: If it's not misjoined, it saves filing fees and attorney fees by sueing 5-10 people at once rather than 1. If it is misjoined because a defendent's attorney argues against improper joining, the plaintiff wins because it's costing the defendent money because he has to pay at attorney to do so. If it is misjoined, no big deal, they just refile seperately.
Remember the RIAA's suits aren't designed to generate money, they're designed to generate press. The press being if you're even remotely suspected of pirating music, you are gonna get sued silly.
I'd be willing to help! I have a lot of money, and access to high-speed internet connections and massive servers.
mailto:mole-rat@riaa.org
http://news.com.com/Google+to+feds+Back+off/2100-1 030_3-6041113.html?tag=nefd.top
[...]
Another reason for objecting to the subpoena, Google says in its brief authored by Al Gidari and Lisa Delehunt at the law firm of Perkins Coie, is that government lawyers might share the information with the FBI for criminal prosecution--say, of people who typed in search terms like "marijuana cultivation" or "directv hacking."
[...]
Even more than that, I see the DoJ using this information to go after "subversives", just like Nixon did.
Sorry.
http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fi.i.c om.com%2Fcnwk.1d%2Fpdf%2Fne%2F2006%2Fgoogle-doj%2F notice.of.stark.declaration.pdf&siteId=3&oId=2100- 1030-6041113&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex
Right. All of their lawyers are stupid.
Actually, that wouldn't be that hard to believe. Lawyers routinely routinely do and say outrageuous and unbelieveable things, but I don't see that in this case.
No. What I am saying is that these "terrorist" (think Patriot Act) and "kiddie porn" laws shouldn't, but are routinely used by LEAs against NON-terrorists and NON-kiddie porners (against the spirit and intentions of the lawmakers) rather than real terrorists and real kiddie pornographers.
First of all, like I wrote, the DoJ is not entitled to Google's information. It's THEIRS to do with as they wish.
Secondly, giving this "anonymous usage data" is a slippery slope and a fishing expedition. Let's say they get this "anoymous usage data", next time they come back and want a little more. Go read Google's reply to the DoJ's request... it's pretty well spelled out in there.
"Kiddie porn" is like "terrorism". It's one of those terms designed to elicit an emotional response without thinking. The problem is those words mean whatever the DoJ wants them to mean.
Shine a penlight laser up at a plane, you are a "terrorist." Have pictures of your 8 month old son taking a bath, you got "kiddie porn."
And Google's council probably thinks you have a piss poor view of privacy rights and a obscenely psychotic and enflated opinion of what the DoJ's is entitled to.
Shall we continue?
Google's attorneys disagree with the DoJ's (and apparently your) opinion that the subpoena is reasonable.
IOW, Google may have information not in the DoJ's possesion, the info may be relevant, however Google's attorneys are rightfully arguing that the DoJ has no legal right to obtain this information. It's Google's private info, not subjective to disclosure merely at the whim of the DoJ, unless Google consents and they don't. Unless this information has been obtained illegally, I see this subpoena being illegal and quashed.
Time will tell what the court thinks, won't it?