Actually, if they were CDMA phones from Huwei or ZTE (ztc?), they apparently wouldn't be subject to the "flaw" mentioned. The article blithely uses "3G" to refer exclusively to UMTS, no mention whatsoever of CDMA2000. Of course, "every 3G device" is not on a UMTS network.
What is a "stable fault?" By definition, a fault exists where there is earth movement. It's just a matter of how long it takes for enough forces to build to create a slip.
But causation does require correlation, along with a reasonable basis for the cause. Maybe something like "if you pump water in there, it reduces friction and the fault slips a little."
Because discussing the names of jurors is common dinner table conversation. The husband probably didn't even remember the 20 year old suit. Samsung was compelled to disclose the connection to the court after researching and finding the records.
You mean like in the actual article where there are pictures showing that the sun doesn't even have to be in-frame (or present at all, for that matter)?
Coverage quality depends on location, and therefore how much you travel. You do know that Tracfone doesn't have their own network, and uses the Verizon network for some of their phones/locations, right? Tracfone seems to favor T-Mobile and Sprint, neither of which have very good coverage outside of metro areas.
I can think of lots of electronic devices which can be expected to last less than 2 years with normal use. There are whole websites full of electronics which I'd be pleasantly surprised to find still working after 2 years of use.
All else being equal, RF signals diminish at the square of the distance. GPS satellites orbit at ~20,000 km. A weather balloon might get to 50 km, max. So 400x. 400^2=160000. GPS probably uses directional antennae (no sense broadcasting outwards), so maybe a bit less. Even with that, the signals from weather balloons can be expected to be very much stronger than that from GPS. Plus, the reason Lightsquared's original plan would never work is that it used frequencies immediately adjacent to GOS frequencies. That issue is avoided by using a different frequency, one not adjacent to satellite frequencies.
Still, Lightsquared should be denied - they acquired satellite frequencies cheaply, because of the known limitations. They then wanted to repurpose them for terrestrial use, vastly increasing their value. But, it was proven that couldn't work without interfering with other satellite usage (GPS). The government doesn't owe them anything - they can still use those frequencies for satellites, which is exactly what they paid for. Because they couldn't get much more value than they paid for, they're now asking for a "freebie." They have an exaggerated sense of entitlement. Screw them.
It isn't at all uncommon for US judicial decisions, including those from the Supreme Court, to make use of contemporaneous formative discussions, such as the Federalist Papers, or Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention, in legal interpretation. Nor is it unusual for them to cite preceding English law, which was the foundation for our own. Nor have Federal Judges consistently shown an understanding of the Constitution (or more likely, have simply ignored it when it didn't suit their agenda), Dred Scot, Slaughter-House Cases, and Wickard v. Filburn being examples of the more disingenuous decisions.
But, direct to your point, you'd do well to at least read the Constitution before commenting, as it addresses the issue quite clearly, with the two most ignored statements in whole text:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
"Necessary and proper", "Interstate Commerce". There are parts of the US Constitution which are sufficiently vague as to justify regulating people growing wheat for their own consumption, under the commerce clause, despite the people growing that wheat doing so solely for their own consumption.
From your post, I take it you're Austrian. Kudos for knowing more about US, than us about you.
IMHO, the chief failing in the US Constitution was making the Supreme Court a national institution - it should have been composed of a rotating subset of State justices. Allowing the Feds to judge the Feds has only resulted in disingenuous "if we say red is green, no one can say otherwise" decisions, as your reference to Wickard v. Filburn illustrates.
I'd like to know exactly why Twitter is a necessary component for notifying "you by SMS when your server goes down," which is the only useful example given. (Really, "bookmarking favorited [sic] tweets?" Someone wants to revisit them again and again? They must suffer from short term memory loss.) If your life depends on Twitter, you don't have one.
A carrier would have little reason for locking a phone which was under contract. Why would they care? - they get paid whether it's actually used on their network or not. It would be pay-as-you-go phones which they'd want to restrict, assuming they're sold at subsidized prices.
Or do Euro carriers not subsidize phones and have contract early termination fees, as in the US? (in which case there would be no reason to lock them at all)
"If those rights are unalienable, why do we need governments to secure them?"
Seriously? To prevent others from violating those rights. Although there are arguably non-governmental solutions (anarcho-capitalism being one), securing rights is a fundamental basis for why governments are formed.
IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he
be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest,
and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give
up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any
other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of
nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and
constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as
he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity
and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very
unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which,
however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without
reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others,
who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation
of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name,
property.
You've never read any Constitutional history, have you?
I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Bonus points for reading political philosophy.
It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect - that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few.
"I'm not sure XBian is wrong...If these things are separate executables or modular plugins, why can't they be closed source?"
I tend to agree. The license isn't GPL, although the author's complaint speaks as if it is. In fact, the license never refers to source code, but has this vague requirement:
IT should be noted that for components applicable to this license, any changes made MUST be made publicly
available and free of charge.
There's no requirement (as with the GPL) that additional components be made available. From the complaint of the Raspbmc author, indicating confusion about his own license, which isn't GPL, and doesn't require additions to be open sourced:
This doesn't account for all source code however, such as their plugins, their method of building images or their updating scripts. Thus, XBian is not GPL compliant and does not release its entire source.
In fact, the license specifically says such things don't fall under the license (assuming they're not modified versions of the Raspbmc ones):
The following components of Raspbmc are licensed under this agreement:...Any other Raspbmc scripts, such as build scripts and helper scripts which are not sourced from an alternative source.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if they were CDMA phones from Huwei or ZTE (ztc?), they apparently wouldn't be subject to the "flaw" mentioned. The article blithely uses "3G" to refer exclusively to UMTS, no mention whatsoever of CDMA2000. Of course, "every 3G device" is not on a UMTS network.
Sure wish Bezos would spend a nickle to make Amazon search actually work.
What is a "stable fault?" By definition, a fault exists where there is earth movement. It's just a matter of how long it takes for enough forces to build to create a slip.
But causation does require correlation, along with a reasonable basis for the cause. Maybe something like "if you pump water in there, it reduces friction and the fault slips a little."
I'm not defending fracking, per se, isn't it better to have a bunch of small earthquakes than one big one?
YHBT. YHL. HTH. HAND.
Of course, your comment wasn't here, either.
Because discussing the names of jurors is common dinner table conversation. The husband probably didn't even remember the 20 year old suit. Samsung was compelled to disclose the connection to the court after researching and finding the records.
You mean like in the actual article where there are pictures showing that the sun doesn't even have to be in-frame (or present at all, for that matter)?
The only conclusion logically possible is that he's only had one smartphone in the past 8 years, and it was one of those flawed iPhones.
Coverage quality depends on location, and therefore how much you travel. You do know that Tracfone doesn't have their own network, and uses the Verizon network for some of their phones/locations, right? Tracfone seems to favor T-Mobile and Sprint, neither of which have very good coverage outside of metro areas.
Bacterial alchemists!
I can think of lots of electronic devices which can be expected to last less than 2 years with normal use. There are whole websites full of electronics which I'd be pleasantly surprised to find still working after 2 years of use.
Does the EU require a 2 year warranty on calendars? How does that work?
All else being equal, RF signals diminish at the square of the distance. GPS satellites orbit at ~20,000 km. A weather balloon might get to 50 km, max. So 400x. 400^2=160000. GPS probably uses directional antennae (no sense broadcasting outwards), so maybe a bit less. Even with that, the signals from weather balloons can be expected to be very much stronger than that from GPS. Plus, the reason Lightsquared's original plan would never work is that it used frequencies immediately adjacent to GOS frequencies. That issue is avoided by using a different frequency, one not adjacent to satellite frequencies.
Still, Lightsquared should be denied - they acquired satellite frequencies cheaply, because of the known limitations. They then wanted to repurpose them for terrestrial use, vastly increasing their value. But, it was proven that couldn't work without interfering with other satellite usage (GPS). The government doesn't owe them anything - they can still use those frequencies for satellites, which is exactly what they paid for. Because they couldn't get much more value than they paid for, they're now asking for a "freebie." They have an exaggerated sense of entitlement. Screw them.
You've never heard of a "wood bit?"
Dyslexics of the World, Untie!
"They are basically just two turds in the same cesspool."
FTFY.
It isn't at all uncommon for US judicial decisions, including those from the Supreme Court, to make use of contemporaneous formative discussions, such as the Federalist Papers, or Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention, in legal interpretation. Nor is it unusual for them to cite preceding English law, which was the foundation for our own. Nor have Federal Judges consistently shown an understanding of the Constitution (or more likely, have simply ignored it when it didn't suit their agenda),
Dred Scot, Slaughter-House Cases, and Wickard v. Filburn being examples of the more disingenuous decisions.
But, direct to your point, you'd do well to at least read the Constitution before commenting, as it addresses the issue quite clearly, with the two most ignored statements in whole text:
From your post, I take it you're Austrian. Kudos for knowing more about US, than us about you.
IMHO, the chief failing in the US Constitution was making the Supreme Court a national institution - it should have been composed of a rotating subset of State justices. Allowing the Feds to judge the Feds has only resulted in disingenuous "if we say red is green, no one can say otherwise" decisions, as your reference to Wickard v. Filburn illustrates.
I'd like to know exactly why Twitter is a necessary component for notifying "you by SMS when your server goes down," which is the only useful example given. (Really, "bookmarking favorited [sic] tweets?" Someone wants to revisit them again and again? They must suffer from short term memory loss.) If your life depends on Twitter, you don't have one.
A carrier would have little reason for locking a phone which was under contract. Why would they care? - they get paid whether it's actually used on their network or not. It would be pay-as-you-go phones which they'd want to restrict, assuming they're sold at subsidized prices.
Or do Euro carriers not subsidize phones and have contract early termination fees, as in the US? (in which case there would be no reason to lock them at all)
Seriously? To prevent others from violating those rights. Although there are arguably non-governmental solutions (anarcho-capitalism being one), securing rights is a fundamental basis for why governments are formed.
- John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #84
Or even the Declaration of Independence:
Bonus points for reading political philosophy.
-Thomas Paine
I tend to agree. The license isn't GPL, although the author's complaint speaks as if it is. In fact, the license never refers to source code, but has this vague requirement:
There's no requirement (as with the GPL) that additional components be made available. From the complaint of the Raspbmc author, indicating confusion about his own license, which isn't GPL, and doesn't require additions to be open sourced:
In fact, the license specifically says such things don't fall under the license (assuming they're not modified versions of the Raspbmc ones):
(emphasis added)