I've got to disagree, at least for my personal use. I make far more errors using a virtual keyboard than a BB keyboard. I also can't use a virtual keyboard unless I'm looking at it.
RIM gives up the keys they control. They don't control the keys to any private BES server, which includes all business servers.
The only time you have to worry is if you're using a carrier server. If you're using servers controlled by your carrier, it doesn't matter what phone you use. All of them have been legally required to have intercept capabilities long before smartphones existed.
Nowhere did I say it undermined your position. What undermined your position was the majority of my comment, the parts you conveniently did not quote or address.
The part you did quote was my statement regarding your lack of civility from the start, but nice strawman.
Obviously the statement says more about me than either of you, though one thing it doesn't say is that I didn't take your opinion at face value. If that had been the case, I wouldn't have bothered replying in the first place. The Internet is full of these people, so even sometimes tenuous reputations of a single account which cannot be followed off-site is worth more than it being absent. That shows a person is willing to stand behind what they say, and the manner in which they say it. Assuming you are the same AC, your response further underscores my point, especially given the continued lack of any attempt at civility.
Being offensive and patronizing is easy when you don't have to worry about knowledge of your behavior following you around. It must be an interesting world you live in where the adult thing to do is throw insults anonymously. I'm glad I don't live there.
Was he a Nazi, having sex with goats, or attending a Klan meeting?
Perhaps he was all three. The content was not actually described, merely the setting in very general terms. It's thus illogical to castigate someone based on further assumptions, because nobody but the original poster actually knows what the conduct in question was.
Drinking a couple beers with friends is not the same as gang-raping a group of freshman girls. There's a lot of area that could possibly be covered under "poor judgment at a college gathering." The former is relatively low on the scale, while the latter is pretty high. He didn't elaborate on the poor judgment in question, so assuming it was "because they partied in college" is not the most intelligent of assumptions you could make in this situation.
Yes, most people partied in college. Absent a concrete statement that it was the partying, and not other behavior, which ruled him out is a tad bit presumptuous (to put it mildly).
Possibly, but he also knows what the content of the pictures were while you don't.
There are a lot of things I could find out about a person regarding how they spend their off hours, and many of those would give me pause in hiring them. Many would also absolutely preclude them from being hired even with an otherwise excellent resume and great interpersonal and interview skills.
The statement regarding not hiring someone because of pictures wherein the content was not actually described doesn't say anything concrete about Geoskd. Telling someone they're part of the worst scum of the Earth because they refused to hire someone based on knowledge you're not privy to, however, says volumes about you. The fact that you were unwilling to log in to make the statement says even more.
The few people who are actually capable of putting together coherent descriptions of what should reasonably happen given certain assumptions will be shouted down by whoever has decided they know what happened. Regardless of how the case turns out, there will be a large group of people who believe that justice was perverted for political purposes, and the result is more proof that there is a vast left-wing/right-wing conspiracy to destroy group X.
We'll have lots of basement legal experts claim hundreds of completely illogical and irrational things about how the law works, and in general the discussion will devolve to how big a given person's e-peen is.
Suppose Apple had two nearly-identically named products with nearly identical apparent functionality which couldn't run the same programs. Say, iPad 3 and iPad X. Look the same, appear to function the same, same product line name, just a different version to indicate there's some sort of difference. The iPad 3 runs everything that can run on iOS, but the iPad X runs only apps made just for the iPad X.
Then, and only then, would the comparison be fitting.
If you wish to spend all your waking hours devoted to thinking about astronomy, then astronomy research is the position for you.
This has the implicit else of "don't go into research." After all, there are other fields within astrophysics other than research. If you're there to take over a faculty position, you do X. Otherwise, the tip doesn't apply.
I know I personally have interests where I could happily maintain 120 hour weeks of research, and there are a couple of those that I could conceivably go to graduate school for if I had been so inclined. So, if I was going into a research field I loved, I wouldn't so much as bat an eyelash at the statement in the email, it would be just another pronouncement from Captain Obvious. That's just me though.
I think it's dependent entirely on the particular definition of "sometimes."
The statement can be broadly interpreted, and there are cases it would apply to where I would agree with the sentiment, and cases it would apply where I wouldn't.
That's why lawyers are as rampant as they are, because language is so bloody ambiguous sometimes.
Nope, the story is about the control software and what is done with the data once it's collected. They just focus on the hardware to get peoples' attention.
What I got from the article is this has very little to do with hardware, and a lot to do with the software behind it.
It's using optical recognition not to track a pointer over any given surface, but to actually detect what the surface is and automatically send control signals to other things based simply on the surface touched.
<snark> Really, Google could avoid paying for any patents and just make a cellular phone? </snark>
Buying patent portfolios is like buying a house instead of renting. Google would obtain those patents either via outright ownership, or they'd rent them. You cannot make a cellular phone which is compatible with modern networks without patent encumbrance of some sort or another.
Purchasing patent portfolios is to R&D what buying a building is to building one. If you need a building and one exists which fits your purpose, and your time is better spent in other aspects of your business than the construction of something fitting that purpose, you buy it outright. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
And as was said before, in no way does any of the above constitute "legal fees," even if the purpose of the acquisition is primarily to launch legal assaults backed by those patents.
I realized a bit belatedly that you were speaking directly to the title of the story, while I was referring to the content of many of the comments.
You are, of course, completely correct. It's not a binary issue, and in fact falls into a number of positions along the scale at the same time, depending on the location the question is being asked of.
By its very definition, whether something is "thing a" or not is a binary question.
Either something is a right, or it is not. It cannot be both.
There are certainly multiple classifications of things in the order of their perceived importance, so just because something is not a right does not make it unimportant. That wasn't the issue posited though.
That may be an aspect of a civilized society, but that aspect is not properly called a right.
That's an entitlement. Something society believes everyone should be provided with, and which taxes some portion of the society in order to provide it. It's actually the antithesis of a right. Support or oppose entitlements, but calling them rights is like calling the sky "the ground."
The distinction falls where the delineations of power in the Constitution falls.
Unfortunately, that's far from settled. Access to anything not explicitly granted as the domain of the Federal government via the Constitution is a right reserved to the States or the people. Well, it would be if the Federal government recognized that the Commerce Clause and taxation powers had a limit. They don't, so for the most part the 9th and 10th Amendments may as well not exist at all.
Many (perhaps most) people here are not capable of making the distinction between the concepts of access to something and being given something for free.
Yes, access is a right (only theoretically, since the Federal government does not recognize the 9th and 10th amendments except where it is politically expedient). Most people seem to read the question in the context of a positive right though, which it absolutely is not.
Slashdot Mirror
Most businesses don't use RIM's BES servers. They use their own. The key sharing only affects individual users.
I've got to disagree, at least for my personal use. I make far more errors using a virtual keyboard than a BB keyboard. I also can't use a virtual keyboard unless I'm looking at it.
RIM gives up the keys they control. They don't control the keys to any private BES server, which includes all business servers.
The only time you have to worry is if you're using a carrier server. If you're using servers controlled by your carrier, it doesn't matter what phone you use. All of them have been legally required to have intercept capabilities long before smartphones existed.
Nowhere did I say it undermined your position. What undermined your position was the majority of my comment, the parts you conveniently did not quote or address.
The part you did quote was my statement regarding your lack of civility from the start, but nice strawman.
Obviously the statement says more about me than either of you, though one thing it doesn't say is that I didn't take your opinion at face value. If that had been the case, I wouldn't have bothered replying in the first place. The Internet is full of these people, so even sometimes tenuous reputations of a single account which cannot be followed off-site is worth more than it being absent. That shows a person is willing to stand behind what they say, and the manner in which they say it. Assuming you are the same AC, your response further underscores my point, especially given the continued lack of any attempt at civility.
Being offensive and patronizing is easy when you don't have to worry about knowledge of your behavior following you around. It must be an interesting world you live in where the adult thing to do is throw insults anonymously. I'm glad I don't live there.
Was he a Nazi, having sex with goats, or attending a Klan meeting?
Perhaps he was all three. The content was not actually described, merely the setting in very general terms. It's thus illogical to castigate someone based on further assumptions, because nobody but the original poster actually knows what the conduct in question was.
Drinking a couple beers with friends is not the same as gang-raping a group of freshman girls. There's a lot of area that could possibly be covered under "poor judgment at a college gathering." The former is relatively low on the scale, while the latter is pretty high. He didn't elaborate on the poor judgment in question, so assuming it was "because they partied in college" is not the most intelligent of assumptions you could make in this situation.
Yes, most people partied in college. Absent a concrete statement that it was the partying, and not other behavior, which ruled him out is a tad bit presumptuous (to put it mildly).
Possibly, but he also knows what the content of the pictures were while you don't.
There are a lot of things I could find out about a person regarding how they spend their off hours, and many of those would give me pause in hiring them. Many would also absolutely preclude them from being hired even with an otherwise excellent resume and great interpersonal and interview skills.
The statement regarding not hiring someone because of pictures wherein the content was not actually described doesn't say anything concrete about Geoskd. Telling someone they're part of the worst scum of the Earth because they refused to hire someone based on knowledge you're not privy to, however, says volumes about you. The fact that you were unwilling to log in to make the statement says even more.
It'll be pretty much the same.
The few people who are actually capable of putting together coherent descriptions of what should reasonably happen given certain assumptions will be shouted down by whoever has decided they know what happened. Regardless of how the case turns out, there will be a large group of people who believe that justice was perverted for political purposes, and the result is more proof that there is a vast left-wing/right-wing conspiracy to destroy group X.
We'll have lots of basement legal experts claim hundreds of completely illogical and irrational things about how the law works, and in general the discussion will devolve to how big a given person's e-peen is.
Suppose Apple had two nearly-identically named products with nearly identical apparent functionality which couldn't run the same programs. Say, iPad 3 and iPad X. Look the same, appear to function the same, same product line name, just a different version to indicate there's some sort of difference. The iPad 3 runs everything that can run on iOS, but the iPad X runs only apps made just for the iPad X.
Then, and only then, would the comparison be fitting.
Whoosh...
I saw it as a simple if-then.
If you wish to spend all your waking hours devoted to thinking about astronomy, then astronomy research is the position for you.
This has the implicit else of "don't go into research." After all, there are other fields within astrophysics other than research. If you're there to take over a faculty position, you do X. Otherwise, the tip doesn't apply.
I know I personally have interests where I could happily maintain 120 hour weeks of research, and there are a couple of those that I could conceivably go to graduate school for if I had been so inclined. So, if I was going into a research field I loved, I wouldn't so much as bat an eyelash at the statement in the email, it would be just another pronouncement from Captain Obvious. That's just me though.
I think it's dependent entirely on the particular definition of "sometimes."
The statement can be broadly interpreted, and there are cases it would apply to where I would agree with the sentiment, and cases it would apply where I wouldn't.
That's why lawyers are as rampant as they are, because language is so bloody ambiguous sometimes.
Nope, the story is about the control software and what is done with the data once it's collected. They just focus on the hardware to get peoples' attention.
What I got from the article is this has very little to do with hardware, and a lot to do with the software behind it.
It's using optical recognition not to track a pointer over any given surface, but to actually detect what the surface is and automatically send control signals to other things based simply on the surface touched.
The input is actually almost irrelevant.
Better rip that Retina display out then.
<snark>
Really, Google could avoid paying for any patents and just make a cellular phone?
</snark>
Buying patent portfolios is like buying a house instead of renting. Google would obtain those patents either via outright ownership, or they'd rent them. You cannot make a cellular phone which is compatible with modern networks without patent encumbrance of some sort or another.
Purchasing patent portfolios is to R&D what buying a building is to building one. If you need a building and one exists which fits your purpose, and your time is better spent in other aspects of your business than the construction of something fitting that purpose, you buy it outright. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
And as was said before, in no way does any of the above constitute "legal fees," even if the purpose of the acquisition is primarily to launch legal assaults backed by those patents.
No, for many of them "fucking" is synonymous with "hookers."
I realized a bit belatedly that you were speaking directly to the title of the story, while I was referring to the content of many of the comments.
You are, of course, completely correct. It's not a binary issue, and in fact falls into a number of positions along the scale at the same time, depending on the location the question is being asked of.
By its very definition, whether something is "thing a" or not is a binary question.
Either something is a right, or it is not. It cannot be both.
There are certainly multiple classifications of things in the order of their perceived importance, so just because something is not a right does not make it unimportant. That wasn't the issue posited though.
That may be an aspect of a civilized society, but that aspect is not properly called a right.
That's an entitlement. Something society believes everyone should be provided with, and which taxes some portion of the society in order to provide it. It's actually the antithesis of a right. Support or oppose entitlements, but calling them rights is like calling the sky "the ground."
The distinction falls where the delineations of power in the Constitution falls.
Unfortunately, that's far from settled. Access to anything not explicitly granted as the domain of the Federal government via the Constitution is a right reserved to the States or the people. Well, it would be if the Federal government recognized that the Commerce Clause and taxation powers had a limit. They don't, so for the most part the 9th and 10th Amendments may as well not exist at all.
Many (perhaps most) people here are not capable of making the distinction between the concepts of access to something and being given something for free.
Yes, access is a right (only theoretically, since the Federal government does not recognize the 9th and 10th amendments except where it is politically expedient). Most people seem to read the question in the context of a positive right though, which it absolutely is not.
If only everyone posting here read and, more importantly, was actually capable of putting aside their biases long enough to understand what you wrote.
When living your life often requires internet access, then it becomes a right.
No, actually it doesn't. At all. Not even close to the definition of a "right."