Might be, if it's legal. But the only way to tell is to have Congress oversight on the whole domestic spying issue. However, Glorious Leader says it doesn't matter what Congress says. Glorious Leader is wrong. Congress needs to step up.
It depends on how the data is handled and stored, who gets to analyze it, how long it's kept, where else it can be used, etc., etc., etc. And it depends on whether it is legal or not.
It's might be OK for the NSA to use who you call to establish close ties to a terrorist.
It's not OK for the current conservative White House to use your phone contacts to estimate your opinion of the current energy policy.
It's not OK for Homeland Security to use your phone contacts to require extra screening at airports because you work with legitimate exporters in the middle east.
It's not OK for the RIAA to gain access (via the FBI?) to your phone contacts to use for guilty by association accusations in their ridiculous lawsuits.
Bottom line, do you trust this Presidency to stay within the law governing privacy, search and seizure, and due process? At this point, the current administration has basically said (without using so many words) that they are above the law. However, as an American citizen, I can very definitely say they are NOT above the law. This country is a country ruled by law and there is nothing short of a coup that the president can do about it. In fact, according to the law, if the President acts outside of the law, he (by law) would no longer have presidential authority. It's about time our elected officials learned how to stand up to the White House. Terrorism or no terrorism, the United States of American is first and foremost a country ruled by law, not by men.
Hi, Dan. Out of the box, I'm mostly missing support for my built-in wireless card on my laptop, which is a Broadcom based card (sorry, don't have the specific model code with me). What I want is direct support by Broadcom with an installer that works without me having to jump through hoops. And as far as I'm concerned, having to use NDIwrapper and drivers that come with Windows is jumping through hoops. Still, Broadcom is working (slowly) on Linux drivers so all should be good soon. Besides, by the time Broadcom gets up to speed, I'll probably buy an 802.11n card for my pcmcia slot. In which case, I will be looking for direct support for that card hopefully from an open source driver.
The other two driver issues I have is for my ATI 9600 mobile graphics card (ATI provides a driver but it is troublesome to install -- doean't always work) and for my multifunctional Brother printer (Brother also provides a Linux driver but I haven't tried it yet because of the other hardware driver issues).
It's not to say I'm particular but at this late stage Linux as a system should be as easy to maintain as Windows. It's not there yet but it's getting close.
What would really be cool is a central location for installing apps and drivers. What I mean by central is central to Linux, not to the particular distro you happen to be running. I'd like to be able to point my software management app (you know, like YAST or whatever) to one location and have my distro tell that location what I'm running and then be able to select apps that work with my distro. This is instead of the current system where each distro maintains their own multiple different list of apps for different reasons and the average clueless Linux user (that's me) doesn't know how to connect to the different repositories, much less figure out whether he can run a given app or not.
Not this time for me...while Microsoft has been practicing their perpetually delayed rollout approach to OS upgrades, I have been getting ready to switch to Linux for good. I (that is, linux developers) have almost all of the issues worked out and as soon as I can get complete driver support out of the box (so to speak) for my existing hardware in either Ubuntu or SUSE, I'll be using Linux exclusively. Yee-haw.
Hmmm...favoritism or kickbacks at work here? All I can say is if you lose trust it can be very difficult to get it back. While Slashdot plays favorites and practices a form of censorship, at least they don't delete posts. Do they?
Re:The problem of nerve impulse conduction
on
An Alternate Human
·
· Score: 1
Couple of other advantages with the brain/head: Better (and faster) cooling (brain in the chest with current body design would overheat too easily) and higher position for eyesight (see predators and food further away).
You are looking at it from a pie in the sky, "do it all right now or it's not worth doing" attitude. Yes, I would agree that the ideal power source for cars is batteries and stored electricity and efficient electric motors. However, right now pure electric cars are not viable because they cannot use the existing fuel infrastructure and people will not buy an impractical electric car that can only go a 100 miles before you have to spend 8 hours recharging it. Fuel cell cars that run off pure hydrogen are also not viable because they cannot use the existing fuel infrastructure, they're way too expensive, and we don't know how to safely store enough hydrogen on board to give the car a 300 mile plus range. Hydrogen powered fuel cell cars are more than 10 years away even if we had the perfect fuel cell today, because of the hydrogen infrastructure needed. It could be argued that fuel cells that run off gasoline and a reformer are a possible stop-gap measure but the tech for that is also ten or more years away.
However, hybrids make a difference RIGHT NOW. Hybrids allow the batteries we need for a pure electric car to be refined and perfected RIGHT NOW, without need to also change the fuel delivery system. Hybrids allow more efficient electric drive trains to be developed RIGHT NOW while we still use gas for cars. Hybrids allow intelligent power control systems to be developed RIGHT NOW in real world conditions. You can buy a hybrid car that costs essentially the same as a regular car but reduces our dependency on oil RIGHT NOW. Not ten years in the future. If everyone replaced their current automobiles with a hybrid over the next 10 years, the US would be energy self-sufficient at the end of that 10 years. Not in 100, not in 50, not 20, but in 10 YEARS FROM TODAY we could be energy self sufficient. And you wouldn't even have to change anything about your lifestyle. All each of us would have to do is simply spend our money on technology that lets our cars get 40% better gas mileage instead of using it to buy the gas they consume.
The article throws out a lot of math but the bottom line is it only compares the improved gas mileage vs. the purchase cost and residual value of the car. This is a very short sited way to look at the situation. It is equivalent to GM concentrating on the next quarterly results and failing to plan for the next ten years (the situation they find themselves in now). It fails to also include a reduction of insurance costs that is being offered by some insurance providers, and a significant tax credit available for the near future. However, ignoring this, there is a number of indirect costs that would also be reduced in the long run. The hybrid car represents a start to a better and safer future for the world. Everyone in the US, both wealthy and poor, should consider the following:
First of all, reducing the US dependency on oil, whether domestic or foreign, is something each of us can do that will directly and immediately impact the war on terror. That's right. In case you didn't realize it, the US is fighting the war in Iraq because of oil. It's not to say that there aren't other causes (there are), and it's not to say that our foreign policy hasn't been driven by our oil requirements before (it has), but if the US didn't need a stable supply of oil we'd still be fighting the injustices in Iraq by diplomacy instead of by force. The war in Iraq costs each US citizen about $0.83 per gallon of gas (at least 5 billion per month war cost divided by 6 billion gallons of gas per month used in the US). And the US attempting to control the politics of the middle east to provide a stable source of oil for the US economy fuels terrorism (whether valid or not). Bottom line, citizens everywhere and especially in the US can take money out of the hands of terrorists if we reduce our dependency on oil.
Next, the hybrid car allows the auto manufacturers to develop the technology needed to replace the gas powered ICE (internal combustion engine) while still remaining profitable. Major changes represented by a "hydrogen economy" is very risky from a business perspective. The established players (GM, Ford, Exxon, Shell, etc.) are reluctant to change quickly because of the risks involved. New players have difficulty securing financing because of the same risks. The hybrid provides a crucial platform in terms of the real world for some of the enabling technology (flex fuel, PV modules, battery, energy conservation, software control, etc.). You don't go from a well understood technology (discrete gas powered ICE) to new tech (multiple power sources, multiple transmission inputs, computer assisted power management, etc.) without growing pains and without real world usage.
Third, the hybrid car lets us transition off of oil one step at a time. It avoid the totally impractical necessity of a whole new and unproven infrastructure for cars (whether hydrogen, electricity, or whatever, whether for fuels or vendor supplies, or trained technicians, etc.) to be in place before we can start transitioning. Without the hybrid car, the cost of transitioning to a new form of auto power would be much much higher. So, the fact that the hybrid can work off the existing infrastructure while improving efficiency, paving the way for oil independence, and provide a platform to develop the required tech is an uncounted cost savings.
Most practically, however, a plug-in hybrid car ties in very nicely with future efficiency gains in electricity production. As power companies get more efficient and cleaner at producing electricity, you can use that electricity to charge your car at home if you have a plug-in hybrid. And because the hybrid can still use gas from any old gas station, you are not stuck depending on electrical outlets away from home. Battery tech is improving by leaps and bounds as well. I predict in 5 years the batteries in a plug-in hybrid will be able to provide 200 miles of driving range. While 200 miles isn't as much as a full tank of gas, it is enough for most daily driving. T
I'll speculate. SCO, with their business dying, took a long shot. Darl and company managed to rationalize to themselves that they might have a case concerning UNIX in Linux. And if not maybe they could get IBM to buy them as the cheapest way out of the lawsuit. And if not that then they can eventually declare bankruptsy and liquidate the company (i.e. go out of business). In the meantime, the company officers collect their pay and eventually go find a new job.
However, I would bet their enthusiasm got the better of them in some of their public announcements and now I would say there's a possibility of criminal complaints against said company officers. Time will tell.
From the USPTO link: Before a patent will issue, however, the application must overcome the hurdles of utility, novelty, and nonobviousness found in U.S. patent laws.
Is prior art no longer considered? I would think that it would be really tough to come up with an original literary element considering the amount of material published before this new type of patent...
The statement "Either what Google is doing is allowed by copyright law, or it's not." means that only one of the following is true:
1. Google is allowed to do this by copyright law.
2. Google is not allowed to do this by copyright law.
The statement does not choose the answer, it only states an either/or possibility. You, however, have leaped to the conclusion that I am choosing possibility #1. In fact, I have no idea how the case will be decided. But I do believe it would be a boon to lesser known authors if Google is allowed to proceed.
By definition, the law is never wrong because in a country ruled by law (and not by men) it is how a society formally judges right from wrong. However, it could be bad law (doesn't agree with other similar laws), it could be unfair, or it could be contrary to the moral character of the society which it is suppose to govern. In this case, the current US copyright law probably falls within the second area (assuming, of course, a person feels the way you do).
I also feel that the current copyright law is out of balance with society's greater good. Regardless, the current issue has to be decided within the current law. Whether the current law needs to be changed is a separate issue (although there's a very slim possibility that this case would conclude current copyright law is unconstitutional or needs updating for the digital age).
Intellectual Property FUD
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Either what Google is doing is allowed by copyright law, or it's not. The courts will decide, the losers will appeal, and eventually we will have a final ruling. Personally, I think a searchable index might just boost sales of lesser known books (considering that the mainstream bookstores only carry the most "popular" books and if you're not carried by the Barnes & Nobles, et al, you don't have much chance to become known to most of the population).
Last comment: I dunno, we are talking about having the "connection lines open". Your office phone only works when your in your office. Unless its a general company number, and then its only valid when your at work. Your home number only works, when your home, unless you have a PBX or something. -- You say this inferring my comment about multiple numbers - a response to your comment that one number is enough -- is misleading in that these numbers don't count. But your comment was in response to adding a pager and you said one number was enough. Unless you meant that one cell phone number was enough (which I would agree with you on), your comment about multiple numbers included all numbers wherever they may surface. Therefore my response is valid. The truth is, one number is not enough, as you yourself indirectly point out by discounting all of the other phone numbers mentioned. It's the way we live today. Now, if we ever go back to a pre-1950's sort of life then I would agree that one phone would be all that's required.
First, it is unsafe and soon to be illegal to talk on the phone when your driving. -- Who said you had to keep driving? If you want, pull over. If you don't, then don't. The point is you can't be tracked by cell phone if it is off, but then you can't be reached either. Solution? Have some other way to be reached.
Second, every cell phone service I know of has the option of having voice mail which works when the phone is off or on. -- Who said anything, one way or the other, about voice mail? Voice mail is a solution, just not real time. However, it may work well enough for some.
Third, I think its obnoxious when people have 15 different phone numbers and pagers in order to get in touch with them. Anything beyond one is unnecessary. -- Really? I have 4 right now (home, office, cell, fax). Maybe I should quit work. That would at least eliminate one number...
If anybody is that important that they need to stop what they are doing at any given time while driving (presumably to somewhere for some reason), then I respect your importance, and you should just stay at home or some other safe location where you are less likely to get hurt or injured (driving is about number one there). I can't believe that anybody that important is allowed to drive a car. That makes no sense to me. -- Hmmm...and I thought the timing for receiving a call was up to the caller, not the person receiving the call. I guess I could always tell my wife to schedule any important calls so as to not call while I might be driving. Yes, that sounds like it might work...
Keeping your cell phone powered off defeats part of the purpose of having it (someone can contact you wherever you are). A better solution is to also have a pager. Keep the phone off, receive a page, turn on the phone and return the call.
The federal government has been twice told they cannot use cell phones to track individuals without showing probable cause...I would think this would apply to state governments equally as well. Wonder how it might affect commercial applications?
If any company bought SCO, they would have to make a decision right away. They would have to decide what to do about the lawsuit. If they decided SCO didn't have a case, they would still have to deal with all of the damage SCO has caused to other companies (if you buy a company, you buy everything, including liabilities). Very expensive. Plus, by deciding SCO did not have a case the purchasing company would effectively be giving up any purported value to whatever SCO actually does own of UNIX (which is not much if anything). If purchasing company decided to continue the lawsuit, they would inherit the same lack of evidence that SCO is contending with and end up with the same losing case and still have to face the consequences of SCO's actions. From a business perspective, the only thing SCO has that might be worth anything is their UNIX server software for small businesses (which is rapidly being superceded by Linux) and their customer good will (which SCO has pretty much destroyed). In other words, SCO as it stands today is already dead as a company. The only question is: What will they do as a response, liquidate or reform in a different business? Whatever that new business could be is anyone's guess -- but I would bet it could have something to do with Me, Inc.
So SBC charges Google to "reach" their customers or they block access. Google decides to be fair that they should charge SBC for each search that SBC customers instigate on Google or they block access. Whom do you think would be in breach of contract from the user's point of view? Google who provides a search service without commitment to the user or SBC who contracts to the user to supply internet connection services?
Sounds like at least one position is unsustainable...
PJ made a very good point over at Groklaw. Consider: If you are the South Korean government, and you have historical documents written in Word, Excel, etc., and you play by the rules (i.e. you honor Microsoft's copyright, you buy Windows licenses for all your systems, etc.), and all of a sudden you cannot buy a new copy of Windows legally, what do you do? Keep running the old copies and never upgrade from then on?
This is exactly the problem with proprietary file formats. I would say that Microsoft's statement is destined to show up in a large number of conversations about OpenDocument and why it's the right thing to do...
Slashdot Mirror
Might be, if it's legal. But the only way to tell is to have Congress oversight on the whole domestic spying issue. However, Glorious Leader says it doesn't matter what Congress says. Glorious Leader is wrong. Congress needs to step up.
It depends on how the data is handled and stored, who gets to analyze it, how long it's kept, where else it can be used, etc., etc., etc. And it depends on whether it is legal or not.
It's might be OK for the NSA to use who you call to establish close ties to a terrorist.
It's not OK for the current conservative White House to use your phone contacts to estimate your opinion of the current energy policy.
It's not OK for Homeland Security to use your phone contacts to require extra screening at airports because you work with legitimate exporters in the middle east.
It's not OK for the RIAA to gain access (via the FBI?) to your phone contacts to use for guilty by association accusations in their ridiculous lawsuits.
Bottom line, do you trust this Presidency to stay within the law governing privacy, search and seizure, and due process? At this point, the current administration has basically said (without using so many words) that they are above the law. However, as an American citizen, I can very definitely say they are NOT above the law. This country is a country ruled by law and there is nothing short of a coup that the president can do about it. In fact, according to the law, if the President acts outside of the law, he (by law) would no longer have presidential authority. It's about time our elected officials learned how to stand up to the White House. Terrorism or no terrorism, the United States of American is first and foremost a country ruled by law, not by men.
Hi, Dan. Out of the box, I'm mostly missing support for my built-in wireless card on my laptop, which is a Broadcom based card (sorry, don't have the specific model code with me). What I want is direct support by Broadcom with an installer that works without me having to jump through hoops. And as far as I'm concerned, having to use NDIwrapper and drivers that come with Windows is jumping through hoops. Still, Broadcom is working (slowly) on Linux drivers so all should be good soon. Besides, by the time Broadcom gets up to speed, I'll probably buy an 802.11n card for my pcmcia slot. In which case, I will be looking for direct support for that card hopefully from an open source driver. The other two driver issues I have is for my ATI 9600 mobile graphics card (ATI provides a driver but it is troublesome to install -- doean't always work) and for my multifunctional Brother printer (Brother also provides a Linux driver but I haven't tried it yet because of the other hardware driver issues).
It's not to say I'm particular but at this late stage Linux as a system should be as easy to maintain as Windows. It's not there yet but it's getting close.
What would really be cool is a central location for installing apps and drivers. What I mean by central is central to Linux, not to the particular distro you happen to be running. I'd like to be able to point my software management app (you know, like YAST or whatever) to one location and have my distro tell that location what I'm running and then be able to select apps that work with my distro. This is instead of the current system where each distro maintains their own multiple different list of apps for different reasons and the average clueless Linux user (that's me) doesn't know how to connect to the different repositories, much less figure out whether he can run a given app or not.
Not this time for me...while Microsoft has been practicing their perpetually delayed rollout approach to OS upgrades, I have been getting ready to switch to Linux for good. I (that is, linux developers) have almost all of the issues worked out and as soon as I can get complete driver support out of the box (so to speak) for my existing hardware in either Ubuntu or SUSE, I'll be using Linux exclusively. Yee-haw.
Hmmm...favoritism or kickbacks at work here? All I can say is if you lose trust it can be very difficult to get it back. While Slashdot plays favorites and practices a form of censorship, at least they don't delete posts. Do they?
Couple of other advantages with the brain/head: Better (and faster) cooling (brain in the chest with current body design would overheat too easily) and higher position for eyesight (see predators and food further away).
Damn him...
You are looking at it from a pie in the sky, "do it all right now or it's not worth doing" attitude. Yes, I would agree that the ideal power source for cars is batteries and stored electricity and efficient electric motors. However, right now pure electric cars are not viable because they cannot use the existing fuel infrastructure and people will not buy an impractical electric car that can only go a 100 miles before you have to spend 8 hours recharging it. Fuel cell cars that run off pure hydrogen are also not viable because they cannot use the existing fuel infrastructure, they're way too expensive, and we don't know how to safely store enough hydrogen on board to give the car a 300 mile plus range. Hydrogen powered fuel cell cars are more than 10 years away even if we had the perfect fuel cell today, because of the hydrogen infrastructure needed. It could be argued that fuel cells that run off gasoline and a reformer are a possible stop-gap measure but the tech for that is also ten or more years away.
However, hybrids make a difference RIGHT NOW. Hybrids allow the batteries we need for a pure electric car to be refined and perfected RIGHT NOW, without need to also change the fuel delivery system. Hybrids allow more efficient electric drive trains to be developed RIGHT NOW while we still use gas for cars. Hybrids allow intelligent power control systems to be developed RIGHT NOW in real world conditions. You can buy a hybrid car that costs essentially the same as a regular car but reduces our dependency on oil RIGHT NOW. Not ten years in the future. If everyone replaced their current automobiles with a hybrid over the next 10 years, the US would be energy self-sufficient at the end of that 10 years. Not in 100, not in 50, not 20, but in 10 YEARS FROM TODAY we could be energy self sufficient. And you wouldn't even have to change anything about your lifestyle. All each of us would have to do is simply spend our money on technology that lets our cars get 40% better gas mileage instead of using it to buy the gas they consume.
The article throws out a lot of math but the bottom line is it only compares the improved gas mileage vs. the purchase cost and residual value of the car. This is a very short sited way to look at the situation. It is equivalent to GM concentrating on the next quarterly results and failing to plan for the next ten years (the situation they find themselves in now). It fails to also include a reduction of insurance costs that is being offered by some insurance providers, and a significant tax credit available for the near future. However, ignoring this, there is a number of indirect costs that would also be reduced in the long run. The hybrid car represents a start to a better and safer future for the world. Everyone in the US, both wealthy and poor, should consider the following:
First of all, reducing the US dependency on oil, whether domestic or foreign, is something each of us can do that will directly and immediately impact the war on terror. That's right. In case you didn't realize it, the US is fighting the war in Iraq because of oil. It's not to say that there aren't other causes (there are), and it's not to say that our foreign policy hasn't been driven by our oil requirements before (it has), but if the US didn't need a stable supply of oil we'd still be fighting the injustices in Iraq by diplomacy instead of by force. The war in Iraq costs each US citizen about $0.83 per gallon of gas (at least 5 billion per month war cost divided by 6 billion gallons of gas per month used in the US). And the US attempting to control the politics of the middle east to provide a stable source of oil for the US economy fuels terrorism (whether valid or not). Bottom line, citizens everywhere and especially in the US can take money out of the hands of terrorists if we reduce our dependency on oil.
Next, the hybrid car allows the auto manufacturers to develop the technology needed to replace the gas powered ICE (internal combustion engine) while still remaining profitable. Major changes represented by a "hydrogen economy" is very risky from a business perspective. The established players (GM, Ford, Exxon, Shell, etc.) are reluctant to change quickly because of the risks involved. New players have difficulty securing financing because of the same risks. The hybrid provides a crucial platform in terms of the real world for some of the enabling technology (flex fuel, PV modules, battery, energy conservation, software control, etc.). You don't go from a well understood technology (discrete gas powered ICE) to new tech (multiple power sources, multiple transmission inputs, computer assisted power management, etc.) without growing pains and without real world usage.
Third, the hybrid car lets us transition off of oil one step at a time. It avoid the totally impractical necessity of a whole new and unproven infrastructure for cars (whether hydrogen, electricity, or whatever, whether for fuels or vendor supplies, or trained technicians, etc.) to be in place before we can start transitioning. Without the hybrid car, the cost of transitioning to a new form of auto power would be much much higher. So, the fact that the hybrid can work off the existing infrastructure while improving efficiency, paving the way for oil independence, and provide a platform to develop the required tech is an uncounted cost savings.
Most practically, however, a plug-in hybrid car ties in very nicely with future efficiency gains in electricity production. As power companies get more efficient and cleaner at producing electricity, you can use that electricity to charge your car at home if you have a plug-in hybrid. And because the hybrid can still use gas from any old gas station, you are not stuck depending on electrical outlets away from home. Battery tech is improving by leaps and bounds as well. I predict in 5 years the batteries in a plug-in hybrid will be able to provide 200 miles of driving range. While 200 miles isn't as much as a full tank of gas, it is enough for most daily driving. T
I'll speculate. SCO, with their business dying, took a long shot. Darl and company managed to rationalize to themselves that they might have a case concerning UNIX in Linux. And if not maybe they could get IBM to buy them as the cheapest way out of the lawsuit. And if not that then they can eventually declare bankruptsy and liquidate the company (i.e. go out of business). In the meantime, the company officers collect their pay and eventually go find a new job.
However, I would bet their enthusiasm got the better of them in some of their public announcements and now I would say there's a possibility of criminal complaints against said company officers. Time will tell.
In Texas, it's spelled 'em bare assing...
Linux 2006. Woohoo.
From the USPTO link: Before a patent will issue, however, the application must overcome the hurdles of utility, novelty, and nonobviousness found in U.S. patent laws.
Is prior art no longer considered? I would think that it would be really tough to come up with an original literary element considering the amount of material published before this new type of patent...
OK, time for a class in logic:
The statement "Either what Google is doing is allowed by copyright law, or it's not." means that only one of the following is true:
1. Google is allowed to do this by copyright law.
2. Google is not allowed to do this by copyright law.
The statement does not choose the answer, it only states an either/or possibility. You, however, have leaped to the conclusion that I am choosing possibility #1. In fact, I have no idea how the case will be decided. But I do believe it would be a boon to lesser known authors if Google is allowed to proceed.
By definition, the law is never wrong because in a country ruled by law (and not by men) it is how a society formally judges right from wrong. However, it could be bad law (doesn't agree with other similar laws), it could be unfair, or it could be contrary to the moral character of the society which it is suppose to govern. In this case, the current US copyright law probably falls within the second area (assuming, of course, a person feels the way you do).
I also feel that the current copyright law is out of balance with society's greater good. Regardless, the current issue has to be decided within the current law. Whether the current law needs to be changed is a separate issue (although there's a very slim possibility that this case would conclude current copyright law is unconstitutional or needs updating for the digital age).
Either what Google is doing is allowed by copyright law, or it's not. The courts will decide, the losers will appeal, and eventually we will have a final ruling. Personally, I think a searchable index might just boost sales of lesser known books (considering that the mainstream bookstores only carry the most "popular" books and if you're not carried by the Barnes & Nobles, et al, you don't have much chance to become known to most of the population).
Love the conversation.
Last comment: I dunno, we are talking about having the "connection lines open". Your office phone only works when your in your office. Unless its a general company number, and then its only valid when your at work. Your home number only works, when your home, unless you have a PBX or something. -- You say this inferring my comment about multiple numbers - a response to your comment that one number is enough -- is misleading in that these numbers don't count. But your comment was in response to adding a pager and you said one number was enough. Unless you meant that one cell phone number was enough (which I would agree with you on), your comment about multiple numbers included all numbers wherever they may surface. Therefore my response is valid. The truth is, one number is not enough, as you yourself indirectly point out by discounting all of the other phone numbers mentioned. It's the way we live today. Now, if we ever go back to a pre-1950's sort of life then I would agree that one phone would be all that's required.
Wow, interesting response...
First, it is unsafe and soon to be illegal to talk on the phone when your driving. -- Who said you had to keep driving? If you want, pull over. If you don't, then don't. The point is you can't be tracked by cell phone if it is off, but then you can't be reached either. Solution? Have some other way to be reached.
Second, every cell phone service I know of has the option of having voice mail which works when the phone is off or on. -- Who said anything, one way or the other, about voice mail? Voice mail is a solution, just not real time. However, it may work well enough for some.
Third, I think its obnoxious when people have 15 different phone numbers and pagers in order to get in touch with them. Anything beyond one is unnecessary. -- Really? I have 4 right now (home, office, cell, fax). Maybe I should quit work. That would at least eliminate one number...
If anybody is that important that they need to stop what they are doing at any given time while driving (presumably to somewhere for some reason), then I respect your importance, and you should just stay at home or some other safe location where you are less likely to get hurt or injured (driving is about number one there). I can't believe that anybody that important is allowed to drive a car. That makes no sense to me. -- Hmmm...and I thought the timing for receiving a call was up to the caller, not the person receiving the call. I guess I could always tell my wife to schedule any important calls so as to not call while I might be driving. Yes, that sounds like it might work...
Devilishly clever...good job.
Keeping your cell phone powered off defeats part of the purpose of having it (someone can contact you wherever you are). A better solution is to also have a pager. Keep the phone off, receive a page, turn on the phone and return the call.
The federal government has been twice told they cannot use cell phones to track individuals without showing probable cause...I would think this would apply to state governments equally as well. Wonder how it might affect commercial applications?
If any company bought SCO, they would have to make a decision right away. They would have to decide what to do about the lawsuit. If they decided SCO didn't have a case, they would still have to deal with all of the damage SCO has caused to other companies (if you buy a company, you buy everything, including liabilities). Very expensive. Plus, by deciding SCO did not have a case the purchasing company would effectively be giving up any purported value to whatever SCO actually does own of UNIX (which is not much if anything). If purchasing company decided to continue the lawsuit, they would inherit the same lack of evidence that SCO is contending with and end up with the same losing case and still have to face the consequences of SCO's actions. From a business perspective, the only thing SCO has that might be worth anything is their UNIX server software for small businesses (which is rapidly being superceded by Linux) and their customer good will (which SCO has pretty much destroyed). In other words, SCO as it stands today is already dead as a company. The only question is: What will they do as a response, liquidate or reform in a different business? Whatever that new business could be is anyone's guess -- but I would bet it could have something to do with Me, Inc.
So SBC charges Google to "reach" their customers or they block access. Google decides to be fair that they should charge SBC for each search that SBC customers instigate on Google or they block access. Whom do you think would be in breach of contract from the user's point of view? Google who provides a search service without commitment to the user or SBC who contracts to the user to supply internet connection services?
Sounds like at least one position is unsustainable...
1. Human Lab Rat [...] Dudes, I was in a double-blind Viagra trial! And I got paid!
...
I would have thought the emphasis would have been on laid
PJ made a very good point over at Groklaw. Consider: If you are the South Korean government, and you have historical documents written in Word, Excel, etc., and you play by the rules (i.e. you honor Microsoft's copyright, you buy Windows licenses for all your systems, etc.), and all of a sudden you cannot buy a new copy of Windows legally, what do you do? Keep running the old copies and never upgrade from then on?
This is exactly the problem with proprietary file formats. I would say that Microsoft's statement is destined to show up in a large number of conversations about OpenDocument and why it's the right thing to do...