They stated, simply, that if it did belong to Apple, which was not a 100% certainty but was likely, that all Apple had to do was to ask for it back through proper channels.
Instead, we saw what happened. I would rather a judge have found for them and dismissed with prejudice, but at least it appears to be working out.
More tech that some teachers will think they need in the classroom now that it's mass producable. Mind you, they use the current smartboard as a screen only or just to let the kids amuse themselves after the lesson has concluded, and the document camera serves only as a replacement for the transparency and overhead projector. Let's take an already overpriced, underused setup at ~$300/2000hr bulb and instead install a setup that's probably many times that, so little Skyler can virtual-fingerpaint at the front of the class instead of using chalk on a board or dry-erase markers.
Some teacher is writing a grant proposal right now, mark my words...
For some reason, a certain iconic commercial from a Super Bowl from the early eighties comes directly to mind.
On the other hand, I don't have faith in the populace. Bread and Circuses worked for the Romans, and fast food, 24 hour cable "news", "reality" TV, radio call-in and talk shows, video games, and the Internet work for the western and developed eastern worlds. Take away one, and probably the worst you'll see on any really large scale will be puzzlement as people switch to another, with complaints from some.
Even if you manage to turn off all of these media that require no critical thinking, all you're going to do is to make a bunch of people angry at you for taking this away from them. You're not going to get most of them to see what they're choosing to slave themselves to, and most of them wouldn't agree that their diversions are bad. They certainly aren't going to en massé realize how they've been had and rise up. They're addicts.
I sympathize. I've been a TV, video game, and Internet addict at various times. I consider myself lucky in a way that the possibility of getting infected through the browser is high enough that I've stopped using Stumbleupon and stopped surfing constantly, and now I go play in the garage, or work on the house, or you know, talk with my wife. Sometimes I miss it, but I get enough of it throughout the day anyway that I may as well tune out and regain my own free time when I can.
This is a step that only an individual can personally choose to take. Most people aren't ready. Those in Anonymous who've chosen this course probably haven't really considered the true lack of result they'll probably see.,
Fuck that I did it to people who were beating me in QWCTF.
When I used to host LAN parties after the DoS attacks became well publicized, we'd all start out playing the game nicely, be it Warcraft II or Quake or whatnot, but when someone would feel they were wronged (how one would be wronged in a game with fairly inflexible rules I still don't understand) or were doing far worse than everyone else, they'd quit and start attacking whoever they felt deserved it.
I started running Warcraft II under MS-DOS only, using DOS networking with only IPX, so that I couldn't be knocked out, but friends who chose to run it under Windows disappeared from the game frequently.
As for Quake, if I didn't set up a dedicated server on the Linux box then I'd host it, so they'd usually leave me alone. I guess my friends were altruistic enough to not try to take the whole game down, just the player they took exception to...
I don't want to revert society to a more primitive time, but I do want to combat artificially set exchange rates with our biggest trading partner in China, and I am legitimately worried that the extreme lack of oversight at our ports is a big danger. A shipping container is massive, and it would be possible to construct an incredibly powerful device, equip a container with GPS, send the container with the device on a route that runs through an area like the refinery area through Boston, and set the thing off right in the middle. All from overseas.
Inspect the containers better. Better scanning, more physical opening and looking. Since businesses want to off-shore, this should be a cost in off-shoring. I'm not saying a massive tariff, I'm saying a tariff that pays for the cost to inspect, to make the import process as safe as manufacturing domestically.
Google did, in fact, have a hand in crafting that site.
So what?
It's certainly not a required service. It's technology demonstrator. It's a proof-of-concept showing that something can be done a certain way. If anything, that they're choosing to disclose to the world that this works this way in such a non-integral way is to be applauded. It means ANYONE can write their browser to work with this, or that this tech can be evaluated and considered for how future standards are written and implemented. It's not like Google implemented this kind of thing in all of their core services and required everyone to use a browser of their choice in order to get by.
Requiring a minimum version in one's choice of browser software is not the same as requiring one to use only one company's product.
Firefox 3.5 came out a little over two years ago, in June 2009. 3.6 came out a little over a year and a half ago, in January 2010. I really can't blame them for trying to use modern tools when safety considerations for exploits and other vulnerabilities themselves should compel users to make an effort to keep up. The newer browsers also implement newer standards, and as there's a long way to go to get it right, we can reasonably expect there to be a lot of version releases to get there, unfortunately.
If anything annoys me, it's that Mozilla has chosen version numbers for their current browser revisions that make no sense. I see no reason to go from 4 to 5 to 6 so fast when the changes feel like maintenance releases or incremental improvements. I wouldn't have even jumped from 3.0 to 3.5; I would have incremented by tenths until being truly ready for a 4.0, so we would have had 3.0, 3,1. and 3.2 instead of 3.0, 3.5, and 3.6. I probably would have called them 4.0, 4.1, and 4.2 instead of 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0, unless one of the revisions was truly big enough to justify the jump in versions.
As for the one site that is meant for Chrome, it says right on the main page that it's a test platform, effectively a technology demonstrator. It's wide open for any browser developer to play with in addition to Google. It's also an HTML5 implementation tester. If anything, it's showcasing what can be done and challenging others to match it, not just to lock in like IE used to do so much of.
Until September 11, 2001, cooperating with a hijacking generally resulted in everyone on a plane surviving and being released in hours or a day. It was a moderate inconvenience. Also, generally terrorist attacks, be they bombings like in Oklahoma City, the original World Trade Center basement parking garage attacks, church bombings, or the killing of doctors resulted in small scale hurt that didn't cascade us into financial ruin.
If anything, the odds of dying in a terrorist attack are so remote in a given year that things really haven't changed. Mundane reasons for death, like car accidents, medical problems, even run-of-the-mill personal homicide massively dwarf terrorism. Additionally, anyone who attempts to hijack a plane is as good as dead, as the passengers will kill them if they can't apprehend them. That pretty much just leaves bombers like Richard Reid or the underwear bomber. Work on ways to detect the components of explosives like these people tried to use that detect in non-invasive ways, and stop confiscating nail clippers. Anyone who could take over a plane with a set of nail clippers can probably take over a plane without the nail clippers.
At this point, Department of War would probably be more accurate than Department of Defense. We haven't been overwhelmingly defensive in about a decade now.
If Homeland Security wanted to really do it right, they should actually screen all incoming cargo and use tariffs on that incoming cargo to pay for cost of the screening. That in turn would make the goods coming in more expensive, which might make domestic options more profitable for consumers, which might also help us retain our manufacturing base.
...charging that the existence of the list in secret is a form of conviction without due process of law for the person who finds themselves on the list.
EVERY form of ruling or decision against a person should have an appeals process. That doesn't mean the process should be easy, or that someone should even have the right to know about their presence on the list until an activity of theirs comes into conflict with the enforcers of the list, but once one has found themselves k-lined they should have the right to appeal that ruling, and the regulating body or the courts should have the capability to ensure that a decision to deem someone on the list as not a risk should have a way of decisively enforcing that ruling. Obviously people who are real threats are not likely to go through the procedural channels to appeal such a listing, as that could result in their actual arrest, so it should be safe to allow people to appeal.
There was an example awhile ago of a man who worked for DHS or TSA or something listing his foreign-born wife on the terrorist watchlist so he could get rid of her. This one example of an official using such a list for his own petty abuse should be enough to require an appeals process, and on top of that, any official found, through malice or negligence, to put the wrong people on a list of this importance should face criminal charges and jail time for their actions. This is NOT something to be screwing around with.
It's funny- on the episode of the first season of the modern Doctor Who series, "Bad Wolf", the Doctor, Jack, and Lynda are arrested and judged guilty by a fairly low-level station security person who tells them that there is no appeal. That felt like science fiction but is looking more like a reflection of society now.
Of course, I don't really understand why there needs to be two lists anyway. Direct those officials in the various agencies that they are going to use the same list on the same actual database system and they ARE going to get the data right, and then fire anyone who attempts to stymie the system or drags their feet.
I have no love for Apple but even this article smells like astroturfing.
To me it sounds like there's two flaws that compound a problem. I don't know much about Apple's auth scheme, but I wouldn't be surprised if either the machines share credential information to such an extent that one infected machine ends up with a bunch of tasty data, or if there's a remote vulnerability that is normally not accessible when an Apple is behind a firewall and not on a direct network segment with another Apple. It's quite plausible that minimal firewalling like most cheap home broadband routers do is enough to block such a worm, but with a bunch of Apples on a LAN or overly generously routing WAN that there's nothing to stop such a spread.
Heh. I downloaded and installed NCSA Mosaic about twenty minutes ago, and unfortunately it no longer appears to work on Windows 7. I don't know if there's something missing in the TCP/IP stack, something in the Windows Socket Services implementation, or what, but it crashes on trying to load URLs. And yes, I did add the "http://" to the front of the URL like you used to have to do.
iTRON sounds like a special-purpose embedded device OS, so that would make sense if it is already stripped to minimal. Linux, on the other hand, isn't meant to be that way, as it's meant to run general-purpose.
That was the argument I was trying to make anyway.
...doesn't using a multipurpose OS kernel with non-optional subroutines that aren't specifically directed toward running the robot or whatever other machine this thing will be stuck in kind of waste resources? I always thought that if one was writing the operating code for a single-purpose machine, one would write it in a language capable of being directly loaded after POST in the manner of an OS without any overhead of another OS, or else one would make it load in the manner of a BIOS at power-on. Or, maybe some hybrid of the two if the machine has to store data in RAM or on disk for some subroutines, like those that learn about the environment.
I've used Linux since Slackware 2.0, and I don't see the Linux kernel necessarily being the best choice. It's way too big and way too general-purpose.
When my contributions to box-step dances and the box-step dance move itself were reverted because the editor felt that it was inappropriate to describe the dance in the article about the dance, I gave up on bothering to contribute.
The main difference is how they're going about achieving their profitability and stock value. Google seems to be interested in achieving profitability by providing a bunch of well-designed, good-functioning services that get use not simply because they're part of a package, but because they're also some of the best tools available. Microsoft seems to make lackluster software that they get people to use by inking nefarious agreements with hardware OEMs, and by bundling things with the intention of driving competition out by people never understanding they have a chance to try something different.
Microsoft used their browser to try to lock in the market. They developed client-side CGI that only works in their browser and developed server-side software that works best with IE and uses those proprietary extensions.
Google does not engage in lock-in with Android; non-Android and non-Google browsers work with Google services essentially as well as the browsers they provide, and their browsers (both the Android-integrated browser and Chrome) work on competitors' services. I can use Yahoo or Bing or Mapquest or whatever just as well as I can use Google.
Google provides a lot of services. Internet search, Maps, E-mail, Productivity, Browser, Mobile OS, and the like, but they don't require one to use all. Certainly there's some question as to whether they're in a little hot water for providing links to their maps or other services through their search, but Yahoo and Bing do the same thing for that, so we'll see.
because the biggest leakers? Congress and the President, going back all the way to Eisenhower, at least, and then even back farther, you can even find some of the founding fathers 'leaking' sensitive info. and none of them got 35 years in prison for it. (which is what the government wanted to do to Drake)
I would amend "the President" to "the executive branch", but essentially that's correct. I'm getting tired of news articles citing an unnameable, anonymous, or confidential source when the information leaked is being used to benefit the leaker and the leaker's employer or interests. Unfortunately that's a failure of the press when they don't investigate who benefits from a piece of information's public release, and that lets corrupt people continue to use the press for more corruption. Of course, the press benefit when readership or viewership goes up, so they're willing to do bad journalism in exchange for these tasty tidbits that really are out there to serve corruption rather than to expose it.
Ford only averted financial disaster because they pointed to bankruptcies at GM and Chrysler and said to their creditors, "look at what happened to them! Let us pay off our debt at sixty cents on the dollar or else this'll happen to us and you too!"
The Chrysler 200/Chrysler Sebring, which last time I checked is a mid-size by our standards, weighs in at almost 4000lb. The 1967 Chrysler 300 weighs about 300lb more despite being probably half-again as long as half-again as wide.
Good engineering can let there be big cars, and good engineering can let big cars be fairly aerodynamic. The Chrysler Concorde and Dodge Intrepid are examples of good exterior shape in a large car. Trouble is, domestic automakers are, as usual, late to the party. VW had a working, reliable multiport fuel injection in 1979. American automakers didn't even get TBI until the eighties, and didn't generally go EFI or SMPI until the mid nineties. Why? They cited cost. Despite the fact that foreign car makers managed to make it work in an affordable fashion long earlier.
Uh, did you see the "were" in my sentence? From the time the automobile market firmed up to give us specific trucks and specific cars (like, the 1920s), trucks were always lesser than cars in price and in options. This started to change in the eighties and really went full swing by the end of the nineties, and it was at this point that the market got all screwed up.
If the employer truly is the copyright holder, the employer can choose the change the license for future distribution of the original copyrighted work. They can't demand that everyone using the GPL version cease to do so, unless they can prove that the license was fraudulently applied and that the code should never have been distributed in the first place. Good luck with that part though.
You say that the government is punishing automakers that make large cars and got into significant financial trouble because they lost their market, then you say that the market wants large cars. Then you say that foreign car makers will clean our clocks because they already make lots of small cars...
From my perspective, American automakers got drunk on selling cheap-to-make vehicles expensively. Trucks, classically, cost less than cars. There also were no luxury trucks, as they were designed for utility, not luxury. Granted, a one-ton truck would cost more than a 3/4, and that would cost more than a 1/2, and it's even possible that the heavier-rated trucks would cost a little more than the cheapest cars, but by and large, a half-ton truck was not expensive, until the domestic automakers decided to gussy up their trucks and engage in a clever marketing strategy.
Unfortunately, gas prices caught up with them and the market never recovered, but they still haven't lowered the prices of trucks. Consequently, people now are willing to look at what other countries would consider to be mid-size cars, which we consider small.
Yes, I know, there are some people who lose things all of the time, things like keys, wallets, pagers, phones...
So far in the roughly sixteen years that this could be a problem for me, I have never lost a wallet, a set of keys, a pager, or a phone. I have locked keys in the car twice, but that was within my first two or three years of driving. I lost a Gerber Model 600 multitool once, but I think someone grabbed it and it wasn't simply lost.
If I was the kind of person who lost stuff often, I would either not have a smartphone or I would find a way to tether it to my person. There are all kinds of retractable tethers, from the old-school cable kind that custodial keyrings use, to fancy whiz-bang kinds like photographers use for rangefinders and light meters.
If you do lose your phone, I'd think that contacting the phone company and getting the service turned off would be first priority, which should sever links between the phone and the account anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
...Apple was dying...
I've heard that for the last 20 years from dozens of tech magazines and from numerous Slashdotters...
They didn't steal it.
They openly acknowledged how they got it.
They stated, simply, that if it did belong to Apple, which was not a 100% certainty but was likely, that all Apple had to do was to ask for it back through proper channels.
Instead, we saw what happened. I would rather a judge have found for them and dismissed with prejudice, but at least it appears to be working out.
More tech that some teachers will think they need in the classroom now that it's mass producable. Mind you, they use the current smartboard as a screen only or just to let the kids amuse themselves after the lesson has concluded, and the document camera serves only as a replacement for the transparency and overhead projector. Let's take an already overpriced, underused setup at ~$300/2000hr bulb and instead install a setup that's probably many times that, so little Skyler can virtual-fingerpaint at the front of the class instead of using chalk on a board or dry-erase markers.
Some teacher is writing a grant proposal right now, mark my words...
For some reason, a certain iconic commercial from a Super Bowl from the early eighties comes directly to mind.
On the other hand, I don't have faith in the populace. Bread and Circuses worked for the Romans, and fast food, 24 hour cable "news", "reality" TV, radio call-in and talk shows, video games, and the Internet work for the western and developed eastern worlds. Take away one, and probably the worst you'll see on any really large scale will be puzzlement as people switch to another, with complaints from some.
Even if you manage to turn off all of these media that require no critical thinking, all you're going to do is to make a bunch of people angry at you for taking this away from them. You're not going to get most of them to see what they're choosing to slave themselves to, and most of them wouldn't agree that their diversions are bad. They certainly aren't going to en massé realize how they've been had and rise up. They're addicts.
I sympathize. I've been a TV, video game, and Internet addict at various times. I consider myself lucky in a way that the possibility of getting infected through the browser is high enough that I've stopped using Stumbleupon and stopped surfing constantly, and now I go play in the garage, or work on the house, or you know, talk with my wife. Sometimes I miss it, but I get enough of it throughout the day anyway that I may as well tune out and regain my own free time when I can.
This is a step that only an individual can personally choose to take. Most people aren't ready. Those in Anonymous who've chosen this course probably haven't really considered the true lack of result they'll probably see.,
Yeah, but be careful when Admiral Adama starts laying in to you and using it, as he's probably REALLY pissed.
You're safe around Colonel Tigh though, unless you're a Number 6, but if you're in to that sort of thing...
When I used to host LAN parties after the DoS attacks became well publicized, we'd all start out playing the game nicely, be it Warcraft II or Quake or whatnot, but when someone would feel they were wronged (how one would be wronged in a game with fairly inflexible rules I still don't understand) or were doing far worse than everyone else, they'd quit and start attacking whoever they felt deserved it.
I started running Warcraft II under MS-DOS only, using DOS networking with only IPX, so that I couldn't be knocked out, but friends who chose to run it under Windows disappeared from the game frequently.
As for Quake, if I didn't set up a dedicated server on the Linux box then I'd host it, so they'd usually leave me alone. I guess my friends were altruistic enough to not try to take the whole game down, just the player they took exception to...
I don't want to revert society to a more primitive time, but I do want to combat artificially set exchange rates with our biggest trading partner in China, and I am legitimately worried that the extreme lack of oversight at our ports is a big danger. A shipping container is massive, and it would be possible to construct an incredibly powerful device, equip a container with GPS, send the container with the device on a route that runs through an area like the refinery area through Boston, and set the thing off right in the middle. All from overseas.
Inspect the containers better. Better scanning, more physical opening and looking. Since businesses want to off-shore, this should be a cost in off-shoring. I'm not saying a massive tariff, I'm saying a tariff that pays for the cost to inspect, to make the import process as safe as manufacturing domestically.
So what?
It's certainly not a required service. It's technology demonstrator. It's a proof-of-concept showing that something can be done a certain way. If anything, that they're choosing to disclose to the world that this works this way in such a non-integral way is to be applauded. It means ANYONE can write their browser to work with this, or that this tech can be evaluated and considered for how future standards are written and implemented. It's not like Google implemented this kind of thing in all of their core services and required everyone to use a browser of their choice in order to get by.
Requiring a minimum version in one's choice of browser software is not the same as requiring one to use only one company's product.
Firefox 3.5 came out a little over two years ago, in June 2009. 3.6 came out a little over a year and a half ago, in January 2010. I really can't blame them for trying to use modern tools when safety considerations for exploits and other vulnerabilities themselves should compel users to make an effort to keep up. The newer browsers also implement newer standards, and as there's a long way to go to get it right, we can reasonably expect there to be a lot of version releases to get there, unfortunately.
If anything annoys me, it's that Mozilla has chosen version numbers for their current browser revisions that make no sense. I see no reason to go from 4 to 5 to 6 so fast when the changes feel like maintenance releases or incremental improvements. I wouldn't have even jumped from 3.0 to 3.5; I would have incremented by tenths until being truly ready for a 4.0, so we would have had 3.0, 3,1. and 3.2 instead of 3.0, 3.5, and 3.6. I probably would have called them 4.0, 4.1, and 4.2 instead of 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0, unless one of the revisions was truly big enough to justify the jump in versions.
As for the one site that is meant for Chrome, it says right on the main page that it's a test platform, effectively a technology demonstrator. It's wide open for any browser developer to play with in addition to Google. It's also an HTML5 implementation tester. If anything, it's showcasing what can be done and challenging others to match it, not just to lock in like IE used to do so much of.
Until September 11, 2001, cooperating with a hijacking generally resulted in everyone on a plane surviving and being released in hours or a day. It was a moderate inconvenience. Also, generally terrorist attacks, be they bombings like in Oklahoma City, the original World Trade Center basement parking garage attacks, church bombings, or the killing of doctors resulted in small scale hurt that didn't cascade us into financial ruin.
If anything, the odds of dying in a terrorist attack are so remote in a given year that things really haven't changed. Mundane reasons for death, like car accidents, medical problems, even run-of-the-mill personal homicide massively dwarf terrorism. Additionally, anyone who attempts to hijack a plane is as good as dead, as the passengers will kill them if they can't apprehend them. That pretty much just leaves bombers like Richard Reid or the underwear bomber. Work on ways to detect the components of explosives like these people tried to use that detect in non-invasive ways, and stop confiscating nail clippers. Anyone who could take over a plane with a set of nail clippers can probably take over a plane without the nail clippers.
They could have named it the Ministry of Love...
At this point, Department of War would probably be more accurate than Department of Defense. We haven't been overwhelmingly defensive in about a decade now.
If Homeland Security wanted to really do it right, they should actually screen all incoming cargo and use tariffs on that incoming cargo to pay for cost of the screening. That in turn would make the goods coming in more expensive, which might make domestic options more profitable for consumers, which might also help us retain our manufacturing base.
...charging that the existence of the list in secret is a form of conviction without due process of law for the person who finds themselves on the list.
EVERY form of ruling or decision against a person should have an appeals process. That doesn't mean the process should be easy, or that someone should even have the right to know about their presence on the list until an activity of theirs comes into conflict with the enforcers of the list, but once one has found themselves k-lined they should have the right to appeal that ruling, and the regulating body or the courts should have the capability to ensure that a decision to deem someone on the list as not a risk should have a way of decisively enforcing that ruling. Obviously people who are real threats are not likely to go through the procedural channels to appeal such a listing, as that could result in their actual arrest, so it should be safe to allow people to appeal.
There was an example awhile ago of a man who worked for DHS or TSA or something listing his foreign-born wife on the terrorist watchlist so he could get rid of her. This one example of an official using such a list for his own petty abuse should be enough to require an appeals process, and on top of that, any official found, through malice or negligence, to put the wrong people on a list of this importance should face criminal charges and jail time for their actions. This is NOT something to be screwing around with.
It's funny- on the episode of the first season of the modern Doctor Who series, "Bad Wolf", the Doctor, Jack, and Lynda are arrested and judged guilty by a fairly low-level station security person who tells them that there is no appeal. That felt like science fiction but is looking more like a reflection of society now.
Of course, I don't really understand why there needs to be two lists anyway. Direct those officials in the various agencies that they are going to use the same list on the same actual database system and they ARE going to get the data right, and then fire anyone who attempts to stymie the system or drags their feet.
To me it sounds like there's two flaws that compound a problem. I don't know much about Apple's auth scheme, but I wouldn't be surprised if either the machines share credential information to such an extent that one infected machine ends up with a bunch of tasty data, or if there's a remote vulnerability that is normally not accessible when an Apple is behind a firewall and not on a direct network segment with another Apple. It's quite plausible that minimal firewalling like most cheap home broadband routers do is enough to block such a worm, but with a bunch of Apples on a LAN or overly generously routing WAN that there's nothing to stop such a spread.
Heh. I downloaded and installed NCSA Mosaic about twenty minutes ago, and unfortunately it no longer appears to work on Windows 7. I don't know if there's something missing in the TCP/IP stack, something in the Windows Socket Services implementation, or what, but it crashes on trying to load URLs. And yes, I did add the "http://" to the front of the URL like you used to have to do.
iTRON sounds like a special-purpose embedded device OS, so that would make sense if it is already stripped to minimal. Linux, on the other hand, isn't meant to be that way, as it's meant to run general-purpose.
That was the argument I was trying to make anyway.
...doesn't using a multipurpose OS kernel with non-optional subroutines that aren't specifically directed toward running the robot or whatever other machine this thing will be stuck in kind of waste resources? I always thought that if one was writing the operating code for a single-purpose machine, one would write it in a language capable of being directly loaded after POST in the manner of an OS without any overhead of another OS, or else one would make it load in the manner of a BIOS at power-on. Or, maybe some hybrid of the two if the machine has to store data in RAM or on disk for some subroutines, like those that learn about the environment.
I've used Linux since Slackware 2.0, and I don't see the Linux kernel necessarily being the best choice. It's way too big and way too general-purpose.
When my contributions to box-step dances and the box-step dance move itself were reverted because the editor felt that it was inappropriate to describe the dance in the article about the dance, I gave up on bothering to contribute.
Screw. Them.
The main difference is how they're going about achieving their profitability and stock value. Google seems to be interested in achieving profitability by providing a bunch of well-designed, good-functioning services that get use not simply because they're part of a package, but because they're also some of the best tools available. Microsoft seems to make lackluster software that they get people to use by inking nefarious agreements with hardware OEMs, and by bundling things with the intention of driving competition out by people never understanding they have a chance to try something different.
Microsoft used their browser to try to lock in the market. They developed client-side CGI that only works in their browser and developed server-side software that works best with IE and uses those proprietary extensions.
Google does not engage in lock-in with Android; non-Android and non-Google browsers work with Google services essentially as well as the browsers they provide, and their browsers (both the Android-integrated browser and Chrome) work on competitors' services. I can use Yahoo or Bing or Mapquest or whatever just as well as I can use Google.
Google provides a lot of services. Internet search, Maps, E-mail, Productivity, Browser, Mobile OS, and the like, but they don't require one to use all. Certainly there's some question as to whether they're in a little hot water for providing links to their maps or other services through their search, but Yahoo and Bing do the same thing for that, so we'll see.
I would amend "the President" to "the executive branch", but essentially that's correct. I'm getting tired of news articles citing an unnameable, anonymous, or confidential source when the information leaked is being used to benefit the leaker and the leaker's employer or interests. Unfortunately that's a failure of the press when they don't investigate who benefits from a piece of information's public release, and that lets corrupt people continue to use the press for more corruption. Of course, the press benefit when readership or viewership goes up, so they're willing to do bad journalism in exchange for these tasty tidbits that really are out there to serve corruption rather than to expose it.
Ford only averted financial disaster because they pointed to bankruptcies at GM and Chrysler and said to their creditors, "look at what happened to them! Let us pay off our debt at sixty cents on the dollar or else this'll happen to us and you too!"
The Chrysler 200/Chrysler Sebring, which last time I checked is a mid-size by our standards, weighs in at almost 4000lb. The 1967 Chrysler 300 weighs about 300lb more despite being probably half-again as long as half-again as wide.
Good engineering can let there be big cars, and good engineering can let big cars be fairly aerodynamic. The Chrysler Concorde and Dodge Intrepid are examples of good exterior shape in a large car. Trouble is, domestic automakers are, as usual, late to the party. VW had a working, reliable multiport fuel injection in 1979. American automakers didn't even get TBI until the eighties, and didn't generally go EFI or SMPI until the mid nineties. Why? They cited cost. Despite the fact that foreign car makers managed to make it work in an affordable fashion long earlier.
Uh, did you see the "were" in my sentence? From the time the automobile market firmed up to give us specific trucks and specific cars (like, the 1920s), trucks were always lesser than cars in price and in options. This started to change in the eighties and really went full swing by the end of the nineties, and it was at this point that the market got all screwed up.
If the employer truly is the copyright holder, the employer can choose the change the license for future distribution of the original copyrighted work. They can't demand that everyone using the GPL version cease to do so, unless they can prove that the license was fraudulently applied and that the code should never have been distributed in the first place. Good luck with that part though.
I don't understand what you're saying.
You say that the government is punishing automakers that make large cars and got into significant financial trouble because they lost their market, then you say that the market wants large cars. Then you say that foreign car makers will clean our clocks because they already make lots of small cars...
From my perspective, American automakers got drunk on selling cheap-to-make vehicles expensively. Trucks, classically, cost less than cars. There also were no luxury trucks, as they were designed for utility , not luxury. Granted, a one-ton truck would cost more than a 3/4, and that would cost more than a 1/2, and it's even possible that the heavier-rated trucks would cost a little more than the cheapest cars, but by and large, a half-ton truck was not expensive, until the domestic automakers decided to gussy up their trucks and engage in a clever marketing strategy.
Unfortunately, gas prices caught up with them and the market never recovered, but they still haven't lowered the prices of trucks. Consequently, people now are willing to look at what other countries would consider to be mid-size cars, which we consider small.
...don't lose your phone.
Yes, I know, there are some people who lose things all of the time, things like keys, wallets, pagers, phones...
So far in the roughly sixteen years that this could be a problem for me, I have never lost a wallet, a set of keys, a pager, or a phone. I have locked keys in the car twice, but that was within my first two or three years of driving. I lost a Gerber Model 600 multitool once, but I think someone grabbed it and it wasn't simply lost.
If I was the kind of person who lost stuff often, I would either not have a smartphone or I would find a way to tether it to my person. There are all kinds of retractable tethers, from the old-school cable kind that custodial keyrings use, to fancy whiz-bang kinds like photographers use for rangefinders and light meters.
If you do lose your phone, I'd think that contacting the phone company and getting the service turned off would be first priority, which should sever links between the phone and the account anyway.