TFA: However, it said the lack of proof was reason enough to restrict use, just in case, comparing mobile phone raditation to other things whose dangers were once sunknown, such as asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco."
It would seem they want to hold off using anything until somebody proves the negative....
Wait, so the penultimate ruling (the one before this one) was in favor of Rambus?
Also, I thought the courts were supposed to view a party as guilty by default if they destroy evidence.
Yes to your question.
No to your destruction statement. They are not "Guilty" by default unless they were required to retain the documents. Rambus would be required to retain these documents and the 1200+ email backup tapes if they were planning litigation, or where a reasonable person could forsee litigation. Since they were clearly planning litigation as early as 1998, they can't come along in 2006 and say that litigation was unanticipated.
Still, you have to wonder why this company was in such a rush to flush.
Its not at all clear that this is tracking. That term was introduced by the link you posted.
From the source quoted in the link you posted:
Media Measurement for Flash allows companies to get real-time, aggregated reporting of how their video content is distributed, what the audience reach is, and how much video is played.
How distributed, Audience numbers, and how much of the video is actually viewed seem pretty innocuous on their face. The devil, of course. is in the details. It could be all server side, with no tracking per say, everything you could currently get from from a web server log (user agent ID, hit counts) plus additional info (such as percent/bytes transmitted) from the streaming engine.
But this is Adobe. So we are left with assuming evil intent or simple incompetence. My Hanlon Meter pegs both pins when Adobe is involved.
16 year olds don't have access to super computers nor a clue about how to find one. Nor do they know what drugs do which things, (street drugs excepted of course).
The relationship with the "mentor" company, Sanofi-Aventis apparently suggests there is some angle being played here by the mentor company, and I'm willing to bet it has something to do with patents.
I first knew Flash was evil when there were no such controls in the first version ever released.
How much more acceptance would there be of this product if they had just built in some level of end-user control from the beginning? Cookie clearing, Don't play till I say, No sound till I say, Continuous loops controls, etc, etc.
Instead they thru all their weight at supporting punch-the-monkey advertisers and to hell with the users.
Well on windows (and perhaps linux as well), any character put into the keyboard message loop is widely available to any application. Key loggers can get these as well, because they are simply messages, which every process can eaves drop on. (Which is how key-loggers usually work, even the hardware ones).
I use KeePass primarily because it's the only one I've found for Android that works cross-platform anywhere the way I'd like to use it.
There are quite a few that do this. mSecure (from mSeven software) works on Android, iPhone, Windows, Mac, and allows you to sync all your devices with your own computer.
It will also support backup and restore to any regular file, and the database is encrypted. So your drop box plan continues to work. Its is password protected rather the key-file protected. You may argue the wisdom of that, but too often the keyfile approach fails because those get stored on the same device.
If WP wasn't so pathetic in its editing and document management capabilities in the first place it would never need reveal-codes.
It was a crutch that every user had to learn because as long as that existed, there was precious little incentive for WP to ever fix the bugs that necessitated the crutch. You had typists (yeah, that's what they were called in those days) trying to micromanage the formating of every document, which just as often lead to way worse problems.
Not that Word was ever a whole lot better. But with Word you could always select the offending text and remove all formatting and then clean it up.
About here is where all the WP fanboys jump on me with both feet. Talking down about WP is almost as dangerous as badmouthing OS/2.
Only if you do it to sell the vehicle as if it had less mileage. If you don't sell it, or you disclose it at time of sale with an honest estimate of actual mileage its not fraud.
When are people going to understand this. It is the principal reason our tax system is so screwed up and unfair.
Tax incentives to build stadiums for mega-million dollar sports teams. Tax Incentives to attract Microsoft/Google/Apple/Ford. Tax incentives to enforce this cause-celebre today, tomorrows darling next week. Tax incentives to force you to use this product rather than that cheaper product.
Then bitch like hell when companies pay a very low tax rate on stupendous profits and cry about corporate subsidies.
Joe Sixpack is not in a position to be knowledgeable about anything, no need to worry about it.
How very magnanimous of you.
So in your little provincial world, the only people deserving of protection from cookie mining evil corporations and government spies are long practicing linux users? The rest are just cannon fodder?
I suppose this means the only people deserving of medical privacy are the doctors themselves? The only ones deserving of police protection are the cops themselves?
Or run the browser and all of its minions (including flash) in a sandbox, which allows you to snap shot it at some point in time, and flush that sandbox after each browsing session and restore from the snapshot at the start of each new session.
As long as every program has access to the Windows Registry, you will have to sandbox that as well, allowing access to a shadow copy.
But the real problem here is that Joe Sixpack is not in a position to be knowledgeable about all of this. Criminal sanctions against users of Evercookie might keep corporate marketing droids from going down that path, but they won't stop the off-shore porn sites or gambling sites from embedding this type of technology.
Voice/Data Usage Limitation: Sprint reserves the right, without notice, to limit throughput speeds, and to deny, terminate, modify, disconnect or suspend service if off-network usage in a month exceeds: (1) voice: 800 min. or a majority of minutes; or (2) data: 300 megabytes or a majority of kilobytes. Prohibited network use rules apply. See in-store materials or sprint.com/termsandconditions for specific prohibited uses.
Also THIS Story seems to suggest that Sprint has made no long term commitment to having no data caps.
Its not a one sided contract. You get cell service in return.
You (and others on this thread) seem to hand waive this whole issue away without even attempting to explain how some very smart lawyers have this clause in ever cellphone contract out there and routinely enforce it and only RARELY lose in court.
If a contract term was routinely struck down and ruled unenforceable, don't you think that even a lawyer from some backwater college would soon realize this fact and stop putting the term in the contract?
Don't you think that some state would step up and forbid the inclusion of such a term in all contracts?
Neither of these has happened.
So your theory is wrong, its been wrong for as long as cell contracts have been issued, and it shows no signs of becoming true anytime soon.
If a theory is wrong for that long, don't you think its about time you re-evaluate your theory?
and any time you challenge it, they simply terminate the contract and send you packing.
Because saying you automatically agree to any changes is illegal and they can't hold you to it. Anybody can put ANYTHING in a contract, but that doesn't mean they can enforce it. All they can do is terminate the contract, which is exactly what's being discussed here. Wireless companies cannot charge you an ETF when you decline a change to your contract.
And in the mean time you will be left with a device that won't work on anyone else's network, and they may not charge you early termination, but you will be they will charge you for any phone payments due on the device. They won't eat the device charges.
They have your credit card and a contract that says you promised to pay, and the credit card company will simply pay it and bill you. You won't have a leg to stand on when you complain.
If you are a lawyer you would know that the agreed to right to modify, signed in advance, is enforceable the vast majority of the time. Only rarely do you find a judge who with tell them they can't do it. If they were getting bitch slapped by judges as often as you seem to think, they would stop putting that in their contracts in the first place. But its still in there. Know why? Cuz it works.
But you can't. IANAL, but any contract that says "you agree to any changes in the future" is illegal and non-binding.
This is a almost universal in subscription service contracts. For you, a non-lawyer, to stand up and state that it is universally non-binding flies in the face of the facts that it is used everywhere, enforced everywhere, and any time you challenge it, they simply terminate the contract and send you packing.
With virtually all carriers capping virtually all plans these days, any rationale for preventing tethering disappeared.
Now it is simply GREED. They have special plans that add tethering. Therefore you can't tether for free any more. They can't claim network impact. As long as you stay under your Cap what is the problem?
There is precious little data to suggest tethering users actually use more data. I know I don't. Sometimes I just want to send an email attachment that happens to be on my laptop. Some times I need to SSH into a server and can't put up with trying do deal with a command line task on that tiny screen.
But it seems the defenders of this clamp down all seem to be rushing to defending the carriers because the carriers rely on the "over sell" of their bandwidth. Any user that approaches his CAP is therefore somehow stealing from the carrier. (I kid you not, I've seen this argument posted).
But even to reach that level of gullibility you have to buy into the idea that people who tether use more data. But its just not supported by the facts.
The coming release of a flood of WIFI only tablets, with no continuing data plan for the carriers has a lot of people planning to tether these tablets for those few times a year when traveling where there is no handy WIFI. The carriers are trying to nip this in the bud, and they believe that every handheld device needs to have a carrier plan.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop being obtuse.
If you have to position ANY display to avoid glare then by definition glare is a problem.
No amount of posturing on your part will get around this simple fact.
Hmmm, seems you contradicted yourself in the space of two sentences.
If they have to position it to avoid glare then, by definition, glare IS a problem.
TFA: However, it said the lack of proof was reason enough to restrict use, just in case, comparing mobile phone raditation to other things whose dangers were once sunknown, such as asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco."
It would seem they want to hold off using anything until somebody proves the negative....
Wait, so the penultimate ruling (the one before this one) was in favor of Rambus?
Also, I thought the courts were supposed to view a party as guilty by default if they destroy evidence.
Yes to your question.
No to your destruction statement. They are not "Guilty" by default unless they were required to retain the
documents. Rambus would be required to retain these documents and the 1200+ email backup tapes
if they were planning litigation, or where a reasonable person could forsee litigation.
Since they were clearly planning litigation as early as 1998, they can't come along in 2006
and say that litigation was unanticipated.
Still, you have to wonder why this company was in such a rush to flush.
A bit more important addition is more tracking : http://slashdot.org/submission/1581820/Flash-Player-103-adds-tracking
Its not at all clear that this is tracking. That term was introduced by the link you posted.
From the source quoted in the link you posted:
Media Measurement for Flash allows companies to get real-time, aggregated reporting of how their video content is distributed, what the audience reach is, and how much video is played.
How distributed, Audience numbers, and how much of the video is actually viewed seem pretty innocuous on their face.
The devil, of course. is in the details. It could be all server side, with no tracking per say, everything you could currently get from from a web server log (user agent ID, hit counts) plus additional info (such as percent/bytes transmitted) from the streaming engine.
But this is Adobe. So we are left with assuming evil intent or simple incompetence. My Hanlon Meter pegs both pins when Adobe is involved.
My money is on this being fake.
16 year olds don't have access to super computers nor a clue about how to find one.
Nor do they know what drugs do which things, (street drugs excepted of course).
The relationship with the "mentor" company, Sanofi-Aventis apparently suggests there is
some angle being played here by the mentor company, and I'm willing to bet it has
something to do with patents.
The story doesn't pass the sniff test.
I first knew Flash was evil when there were no such controls in the first version ever released.
How much more acceptance would there be of this product if they had just built in some level
of end-user control from the beginning? Cookie clearing, Don't play till I say, No sound till I say,
Continuous loops controls, etc, etc.
Instead they thru all their weight at supporting punch-the-monkey advertisers and to hell with
the users.
Um, it WAS in the USA. No jail either.
Well on windows (and perhaps linux as well), any character put into the keyboard message loop is widely available to any application. Key loggers can get these as well, because they are simply messages, which every process can eaves drop on. (Which is how key-loggers usually work, even the hardware ones).
I use KeePass primarily because it's the only one I've found for Android that works cross-platform anywhere the way I'd like to use it.
There are quite a few that do this. mSecure (from mSeven software) works on Android, iPhone, Windows, Mac, and allows you to sync all your devices with your own computer.
It will also support backup and restore to any regular file, and the database is encrypted. So your drop box plan continues to work.
Its is password protected rather the key-file protected. You may argue the wisdom of that, but too often the keyfile approach fails because those get stored on the same device.
If WP wasn't so pathetic in its editing and document management capabilities in the first place it would never need reveal-codes.
It was a crutch that every user had to learn because as long as that existed, there was precious little incentive for WP to ever fix the bugs that necessitated the crutch. You had typists (yeah, that's what they were called in those days) trying to micromanage the formating of every document, which just as often lead to way worse problems.
Not that Word was ever a whole lot better. But with Word you could always select the offending text and remove all formatting and then clean it up.
About here is where all the WP fanboys jump on me with both feet. Talking down about WP is almost as dangerous as badmouthing OS/2.
My GPS tells me that.
Besides, people drive according to traffic speeds anyway.
Only if you do it to sell the vehicle as if it had less mileage.
If you don't sell it, or you disclose it at time of sale with an honest estimate of actual mileage its not fraud.
Taxing as an incentive IS the problem.
When are people going to understand this. It is the principal reason our tax system is so screwed up and unfair.
Tax incentives to build stadiums for mega-million dollar sports teams.
Tax Incentives to attract Microsoft/Google/Apple/Ford.
Tax incentives to enforce this cause-celebre today, tomorrows darling next week.
Tax incentives to force you to use this product rather than that cheaper product.
Then bitch like hell when companies pay a very low tax rate on stupendous profits and cry about corporate subsidies.
Story about China. Did you miss that?
Joe Sixpack is not in a position to be knowledgeable about anything, no need to worry about it.
How very magnanimous of you.
So in your little provincial world, the only people deserving of protection from cookie mining evil corporations and government spies are long practicing linux users? The rest are just cannon fodder?
I suppose this means the only people deserving of medical privacy are the doctors themselves? The only ones deserving of police protection are the cops themselves?
Or run the browser and all of its minions (including flash) in a sandbox, which allows you to snap shot it at some point in time, and flush that sandbox after each browsing session and restore from the snapshot at the start of each new session.
As long as every program has access to the Windows Registry, you will have to sandbox that as well, allowing access to a shadow copy.
But the real problem here is that Joe Sixpack is not in a position to be knowledgeable about all of this. Criminal sanctions against users of Evercookie might keep corporate marketing droids from going down that path, but they won't stop the off-shore porn sites or gambling sites from embedding this type of technology.
Sprint doesn't have a data cap.
Which is why I said "virtually all".
However this new found religion at sprint is merely a marketing ploy and nothing to rely on. Remember they tried data caps in the past..
Also, roam outside their network, and things can get nasty very quickly:
Voice/Data Usage Limitation: Sprint reserves the right, without notice, to limit throughput speeds, and to deny, terminate, modify, disconnect or suspend service if off-network usage in a month exceeds: (1) voice: 800 min. or a majority of minutes; or (2) data: 300 megabytes or a majority of kilobytes. Prohibited network use rules apply. See in-store materials or sprint.com/termsandconditions for specific prohibited uses.
Also THIS Story seems to suggest that Sprint has made no long term commitment to having no data caps.
Its not a one sided contract. You get cell service in return.
You (and others on this thread) seem to hand waive this whole issue away without even attempting to explain how some very smart lawyers have this clause in ever cellphone contract out there and routinely enforce it and only RARELY lose in court.
If a contract term was routinely struck down and ruled unenforceable, don't you think that even a lawyer from some backwater college would soon realize this fact and stop putting the term in the contract?
Don't you think that some state would step up and forbid the inclusion of such a term in all contracts?
Neither of these has happened.
So your theory is wrong, its been wrong for as long as cell contracts have been issued, and it shows no signs of becoming true anytime soon.
If a theory is wrong for that long, don't you think its about time you re-evaluate your theory?
My estimated maximum percentage of tethering users less than 1000th of one percent of smart phone users.
and any time you challenge it, they simply terminate the contract and send you packing.
Because saying you automatically agree to any changes is illegal and they can't hold you to it. Anybody can put ANYTHING in a contract, but that doesn't mean they can enforce it. All they can do is terminate the contract, which is exactly what's being discussed here. Wireless companies cannot charge you an ETF when you decline a change to your contract.
And in the mean time you will be left with a device that won't work on anyone else's network, and they may not charge you early termination, but you will be they will charge you for any phone payments due on the device. They won't eat the device charges.
They have your credit card and a contract that says you promised to pay, and the credit card company will simply pay it and bill you. You won't have a leg to stand on when you complain.
If you are a lawyer you would know that the agreed to right to modify, signed in advance, is enforceable the vast majority of the time. Only rarely do you find a judge who with tell them they can't do it. If they were getting bitch slapped by judges as often as you seem to think, they would stop putting that in their contracts in the first place. But its still in there. Know why? Cuz it works.
But you can't. IANAL, but any contract that says "you agree to any changes in the future" is illegal and non-binding.
This is a almost universal in subscription service contracts. For you, a non-lawyer, to stand up and state that it is universally non-binding flies in the face of the facts that it is used everywhere, enforced everywhere, and any time you challenge it, they simply terminate the contract and send you packing.
On some phones. Nexus One for example needs no additional software at all. It becomes a wifi router.
Basic contract law says that they can't make changes to the contract without your agreement.
You agreed to let them make changes to the contract when you signed it.
With virtually all carriers capping virtually all plans these days, any rationale for preventing tethering disappeared.
Now it is simply GREED. They have special plans that add tethering. Therefore you can't tether for free any more.
They can't claim network impact. As long as you stay under your Cap what is the problem?
There is precious little data to suggest tethering users actually use more data. I know I don't. Sometimes I just want to
send an email attachment that happens to be on my laptop. Some times I need to SSH into a server and can't put up with
trying do deal with a command line task on that tiny screen.
But it seems the defenders of this clamp down all seem to be rushing to defending the carriers because the carriers
rely on the "over sell" of their bandwidth. Any user that approaches his CAP is therefore somehow stealing from
the carrier. (I kid you not, I've seen this argument posted).
But even to reach that level of gullibility you have to buy into the idea that people who tether use more data. But its just not supported by the facts.
The coming release of a flood of WIFI only tablets, with no continuing data plan for the carriers has a lot of people planning to tether these tablets for those few times a year when traveling where there is no handy WIFI. The carriers are trying to nip this in the bud, and they believe that every handheld device needs to have a carrier plan.