Actually, in this case, it's not Apple's fault, which I fully expect them to stand up in court and say.
I make a clear distinction between what is legal and what is ethical. Advertising a a 4G capability that none of the buyers will ever be able to use unless they travel abroad and then buy service is unethical. Telstra may deserve some crticism for only providing 4G on a limited range of frequencies, but that is irrelevent to the fact that the advertisements are highly misleading. Apple knew that the 4G would not work in Australia, yet they decided to advertise it anyway.
Car analogy: car maker advertises car with 1000 mile range, except that it needs unobtanium for fuel in order to get the 1K mile range. According to you, the fault would lie with the fuel companies for not selling unobtanium.
It's like the release of the Ipone 4GS in the US -- the ads focused on SIRI, but when people complain, Apple then says "It's BETA". That's misleading and frankly dishonest, but probably legal in the USA.
This appears to be just the same: advertise 4G, and in the small print, point out that you will probably never get 4G. It's dishonest.
Maps are only useful when the municipality you live in has marked the roads properly. Here in Massachusetts they mark cross-streets only, not the road you are on
Marking of streets seems to be retarted in much of the USA. California only put the exit numbers on the signs on the interstate highways a few years ago, even though the exits were numbered. It's much clearer if the instructions tell you to "take exit number 32" than "take the exit for xyz street"
GPS has been the most revolutionary technology to allow me to get somewhere the first time. Previously when I'd have to go somewhere new, I'd get out my map, use mapquest, try to get directions first.
The problem with mapquest and other mapping systems is that quite often, as soon as you miss a turn, your mapping instructions may as well be a pile of scrap paper. While with the GPS, if I realize that I may miss a turn, I won't make a wild adjustment to try to make the turn because I know that my GPS will just plan a new route for me.
Look at the dearth of numerical LCD gauges in cars.... Well the reason is it is distracting.
I suspect it has more to do with how our brains process the information than distractions. For example, when monitoring speed, it is much easier to see if the gauge is above or below a fixed point (the target speed) than to manipulate numbers to come to the same conclusion. For example, I can immediately see that the speedometer is past the 45mph mark that is my target, but if the digital display reads 54 when my target is 45, it takes a moment more to process the data and figure out that I am speeding and by how much I am speeding.
IF YOU CAN'T NAVIGATE WITH A RAND MCNALLY PAPER MAP, THEN YOU SHOULD STAY THE FUCK OFF THE HIGHWAYS!!
Yeah, it's so much safer driving with a map on the steering wheel, constantly looking down at it while driving -- that's what many people did before the advent of in-car and portable navigation systems.
OTOH, my father used a voice-only (no display) navigation system in his car for years before he quit driving. As long as the instructions are clear, you don't need the display.
I would be much more interested to know if Llano is fully supported in 3.3 kernel. With 3.2, if KMS is enabled, the screen blanks as soon as the radeon module is loaded (even before X starts).
Longer warrantees directly translate to higher costs
Only in the short term. Longer warranties translate to products designed to last longer which then have a lower cost of ownership. Of course, if all you care about is getting the latest shiny object from the factories in China, then you probably don't care about the warranty. But, consider that if you plan to sell your device and buy a new one, longer product lives translate to higher resale value.
It's clear the legislators have zero clue what investment means.
True enough.
When a company receives startup funding, it is in exchange for ownership shares. That makes it borrowing, not income. Shareholder Equity offsets that funding on the balance sheet.
Now you are showing your ignorance. It's not a loan. It's not borrowing.
But the summary doesn't tell the whole story (I know, what a shock!):
There is a Budget proposal to tax at 30 percent any investment received by closely held companies where the aggregate investment exceeds the fair market value of shares.
Most likely, this is aimed at money laundering. The uncertainty caused by this and the possible corruption amonst those who enforce this are likely to stifle angel investment.
This is actually a story about two things, paparazzi invading people's private lives
No, it's about a celebrity-loving publication labelling anyone who would take a photo of a celebrity as a "would-be paparazzo". This is classic weasel-words to impugn the real victims. I have no great sympathy for paparrazzo, but the real victims here (those who lost phones) had not followed the celebrities, they were just accidentally in the same location and took the opportunity to take photos. There is no indication that they would have tried or been able to sell the photos.
Also, if you want to look for sad pr*cks who should not be given any attention, Russell Brand tried to blame his actions on "the memory of Steve Jobs".
To be fair, if the person taking the pictures is close enough for me to "snatch" the phone from his/her hand, it would seem to me that they are stepping over some line, harassment maybe?
Yes, clearly. The article I read said that the person taking the photo was in a car driving past, so, now, who was it that stepped over a line? Who committed the harrasment?
I don't even rank this the same as taking a normal persons phone and throwing it out the window because the Paparazzi was the person who came into close proximity and shoved the camea phone in his face.
The articles I read did not suggest that it was a paparrazo (do paparrazi use camerphones?). It was just some random guy driving past. The camera was not "shoved in his face". Also, if you are going to effctively ban using a camera in a public street (by making it acceptable to grab the camera and hurl it), where does it end? Can I photograph the police without the police taking my camera and hurling it? Why should someone who can afford to go places that would provide privacy have special protection when he chooses to put himself in a public place?
What if the files on the camera were lost as a result of the camera being thrown through a window? What are the value of those?
It is a viable argument that the charge is excessive, but be clear that the victim was NOT Russell Brand and the person who lost his camer did nothing wrong.
I knew that CIA was in trouble - tradecraft-wise - when a COS let an asset into their HQ and he blew half the station to kingdom come. No one would have done that in the old days
I don't think the CIA has ever been anywhere as good at tradecraft as their public image suggests.
Perhaps there is some decision supporting this, but I don't understand what power the Feds have to impose a barrier on movement from one privately owned location to another? I am of course speaking about the security checkpoints. If I understand it, courts have stated that the searches are constitutional because one can choose to not pass through. But surely the fact that the checkpoint exists is a restraint on freedom of movement? Has anyone challenged the security checkpoints on this basis?
So there's no need to get the SIM card PUK, It's just the easiest way to bypass the PIN password. If you remove the sim card and replace it with another one without a PIN, it will give you access to the phone and all it's data anyway.
Some Motorola phones have versions of "Motoblur" that require a login/password when you put in a new SIM. I don't know how secure this is, but access to the phone if it were a Motorola phone (I think it is actually a Samsung) may not be a simple as putting in a new SIM.
They need to make that clear in their advertising, and in their contracts. Stop offering unlimited to induce people to sign up for overpriced 5 gig contracts.
I don't know why? The wireless spectrum only has a limited amount of space, so a single tower can only stream a maximum amount of data in a month (deviced by thousands of customers).
What have spectrum limits got to do with monthly data caps? At 3:00am, the spectrum is not being used, but if you are over your monthly limit, AT&T will still throttle you. The monthly limits are arbitrary constraints.
Also, if you are going to offer an "unlimited" service, you should make sure you buy the necessary equipment and spectrum to provide it. Otherwise it is a fraudulent offer.
AT&T should just drop this guy and pay up. There is clearly nothing to be gained from doing anything else (unless they are going to give him a large amount of cash to stay quiet).
John Galt turned out to be a lazy bastard who has decided it's easier to force other companies to give you money than it is to actually make something worthwhile yourself.
Who was in charge when Yahoo did the same thing to Google? This looks like a tactic that has been used (abused?) over the years.
Anyway, I dislike any system where it is not mandatory to enforce the privacy of the voter. One of the main reasons we all have to go into a single person booth is to prevent someone who can *tell* how we voted influencing our vote. This could be as nasty as a someone with a crowbar or insidious as the patriarch of the family making his family vote in the same way.
You are 110% correct! Your point also applies to postal voting. IMHO, postal voting should only be available in special circumstances.
Slashdot Mirror
I make a clear distinction between what is legal and what is ethical. Advertising a a 4G capability that none of the buyers will ever be able to use unless they travel abroad and then buy service is unethical. Telstra may deserve some crticism for only providing 4G on a limited range of frequencies, but that is irrelevent to the fact that the advertisements are highly misleading. Apple knew that the 4G would not work in Australia, yet they decided to advertise it anyway.
Car analogy: car maker advertises car with 1000 mile range, except that it needs unobtanium for fuel in order to get the 1K mile range. According to you, the fault would lie with the fuel companies for not selling unobtanium.
It's like the release of the Ipone 4GS in the US -- the ads focused on SIRI, but when people complain, Apple then says "It's BETA". That's misleading and frankly dishonest, but probably legal in the USA.
This appears to be just the same: advertise 4G, and in the small print, point out that you will probably never get 4G. It's dishonest.
Do some research on who Max Moseley's father was.
Marking of streets seems to be retarted in much of the USA. California only put the exit numbers on the signs on the interstate highways a few years ago, even though the exits were numbered. It's much clearer if the instructions tell you to "take exit number 32" than "take the exit for xyz street"
The problem with mapquest and other mapping systems is that quite often, as soon as you miss a turn, your mapping instructions may as well be a pile of scrap paper. While with the GPS, if I realize that I may miss a turn, I won't make a wild adjustment to try to make the turn because I know that my GPS will just plan a new route for me.
I suspect it has more to do with how our brains process the information than distractions. For example, when monitoring speed, it is much easier to see if the gauge is above or below a fixed point (the target speed) than to manipulate numbers to come to the same conclusion. For example, I can immediately see that the speedometer is past the 45mph mark that is my target, but if the digital display reads 54 when my target is 45, it takes a moment more to process the data and figure out that I am speeding and by how much I am speeding.
Yeah, it's so much safer driving with a map on the steering wheel, constantly looking down at it while driving -- that's what many people did before the advent of in-car and portable navigation systems.
OTOH, my father used a voice-only (no display) navigation system in his car for years before he quit driving. As long as the instructions are clear, you don't need the display.
Don't worry, the US isn't just killing Americans -- . The CIA killed 5 ordinary french people by spiking the bread with LSD.
I would be much more interested to know if Llano is fully supported in 3.3 kernel. With 3.2, if KMS is enabled, the screen blanks as soon as the radeon module is loaded (even before X starts).
Only in the short term. Longer warranties translate to products designed to last longer which then have a lower cost of ownership. Of course, if all you care about is getting the latest shiny object from the factories in China, then you probably don't care about the warranty. But, consider that if you plan to sell your device and buy a new one, longer product lives translate to higher resale value.
I doubt that the GP does. I think that he means the same Governor-General that is appointed by The Queen.
The leader of the group was actually Robert Catesby who was a Jesuit
So wait, Jews did 11/5?
I think you need a little education
True enough.
Now you are showing your ignorance. It's not a loan. It's not borrowing.
But the summary doesn't tell the whole story (I know, what a shock!):
Most likely, this is aimed at money laundering. The uncertainty caused by this and the possible corruption amonst those who enforce this are likely to stifle angel investment.
No, it's about a celebrity-loving publication labelling anyone who would take a photo of a celebrity as a "would-be paparazzo". This is classic weasel-words to impugn the real victims. I have no great sympathy for paparrazzo, but the real victims here (those who lost phones) had not followed the celebrities, they were just accidentally in the same location and took the opportunity to take photos. There is no indication that they would have tried or been able to sell the photos.
Also, if you want to look for sad pr*cks who should not be given any attention, Russell Brand tried to blame his actions on "the memory of Steve Jobs".
Yes, clearly. The article I read said that the person taking the photo was in a car driving past, so, now, who was it that stepped over a line? Who committed the harrasment?
I don't know about the laws in the USA, but I think that in the UK, there must be an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the object.
One might argue that the intent was to smash it, and that might constitute permenently depriving someone of an object.
The articles I read did not suggest that it was a paparrazo (do paparrazi use camerphones?). It was just some random guy driving past. The camera was not "shoved in his face". Also, if you are going to effctively ban using a camera in a public street (by making it acceptable to grab the camera and hurl it), where does it end? Can I photograph the police without the police taking my camera and hurling it? Why should someone who can afford to go places that would provide privacy have special protection when he chooses to put himself in a public place?
What if the files on the camera were lost as a result of the camera being thrown through a window? What are the value of those?
It is a viable argument that the charge is excessive, but be clear that the victim was NOT Russell Brand and the person who lost his camer did nothing wrong.
My inner physicist tells me that gravity is a means of propulsion.
So this is going to be giant empty building with the money really going into reasearch on crashed alien spaceships at Area 51?
I don't think the CIA has ever been anywhere as good at tradecraft as their public image suggests.
Perhaps there is some decision supporting this, but I don't understand what power the Feds have to impose a barrier on movement from one privately owned location to another? I am of course speaking about the security checkpoints. If I understand it, courts have stated that the searches are constitutional because one can choose to not pass through. But surely the fact that the checkpoint exists is a restraint on freedom of movement? Has anyone challenged the security checkpoints on this basis?
Some Motorola phones have versions of "Motoblur" that require a login/password when you put in a new SIM. I don't know how secure this is, but access to the phone if it were a Motorola phone (I think it is actually a Samsung) may not be a simple as putting in a new SIM.
T-Mobile is actually quite clear about this.
What have spectrum limits got to do with monthly data caps? At 3:00am, the spectrum is not being used, but if you are over your monthly limit, AT&T will still throttle you. The monthly limits are arbitrary constraints.
Also, if you are going to offer an "unlimited" service, you should make sure you buy the necessary equipment and spectrum to provide it. Otherwise it is a fraudulent offer.
AT&T should just drop this guy and pay up. There is clearly nothing to be gained from doing anything else (unless they are going to give him a large amount of cash to stay quiet).
Who was in charge when Yahoo did the same thing to Google? This looks like a tactic that has been used (abused?) over the years.
You are 110% correct! Your point also applies to postal voting. IMHO, postal voting should only be available in special circumstances.