Because your rights end where another's begin. You have a right to speak, but you do not have a right to interfere with the speech of others, nor do you have the right to force others to hear your speech. You're only out of earshot for those who chose not to be in earshot. It sounds like you're more interested in being disruptive than speaking your mind.
First, most cell phone companies have explicit privacy policies, so there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Second, the cops have no license to transmit on cellular frequencies - so can't legally use a Stingray without a warrant, regardless. (when an individual uses a cell phone, they're transmitting under authority of the carrier's license)
Note that the summary doesn't say what questions were actually asked, it just provides conclusions.
So, were people asked "Smartphones have become very popular in the past 10 years. If you were buying a gun, would you consider a smartgun if they were available?" or were they asked "Would you consider buying a gun which used technology which made it less reliable, might allow others to disable it remotely, and could fail at a critical time due to a dead battery, but was potentially safer when used incorrectly?"
Oh, the study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (yes, named after famous anti-gun nut Michael Bloomberg)? They have a Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research under them. They're part of a move to rephrase what those fighting against civil liberties are doing, so instead of "gun control" it's now referred to as a public health issue - "gun safety." Think of the children.
How quaint that you think physical site visits are the only form of maintenance. You obviously know nothing about operating communications infrastructure.
"Hey, dumbass, guess what. Voice communication uses more data than texts or video streaming,"
Hey, AC, guess what? You're extremely wrong. A full telco fidelity G.711 voice stream uses ~64 kbps (unidirectional). The recommended speech codec for VoLTE is G.722.2, which provides HD audio in <24 kbps. What video streaming are you doing in a 64 k channel? You can't even do decent stereo audio with that.
You have that backwards. It will be called "5G" because it's the 5th Generation of cellular technology. Your comment is obviously in reference to the difference between the ITU-R and carrier definitions of 4G. The ITU based its definition not on generations of technology, but on performance metrics - trading technical correctness for marketing. AFAIK, the ITU hasn't even bothered to try to define 5G. 5G has been defined by a different group though, NGMN. But they too are focused on metrics and not technical generations.
Yep. Wireless is a shared medium, so more bandwidth allows not only higher speed for one user, but more users at the same performance. If demand stays the same, then more supply will lower prices. Just conjecture, but it may also increase battery life, since less time will be needed per bit.
Are you still happy with your 640K of memory, which should be enough for anyone?
Sorry, your answer doesn't count unless you show the math.
Verizon is consistently rated as having the best network in the US. That costs money to build out, maintain, and upgrade.
Currently, Sprint is losing money, T-Mo's profit margin is 1.68%, ATT's is 3.68%. Verizon's is 7.86%. Companies which don't have infrastructure of that scale to build and maintain: Apple's margin is 22.85%, MSFT 13.52%, GOOG 22.86%.
Your implication that VZW is vastly overcharging simply doesn't fit the facts, but does make a good populist sound bite.
I'd like to know who the idiots are that respond and make spam profitable. Really, these enablers are ultimately responsible for spam and should also receive condemnation.
If I benchmark a common office task, like typing War and Peace into Microsoft Word, I find that these new processors run no faster than an old IBM PC/XT with a 4.77 MHz Intel 8088.
"There's no time constraint how quickly they must respond to a request."
We can assume you're referring to GPL, since the Apache doesn't require one to provide source, although you do need to provide a copy of the license along with attribution, which seems to be where that violation occurs.
For GPL, any distribution must be accompanied with the source, or with an offer to provide the source. There's no room for any delay, which is a time constraint. Not making good on an offer of source within a reasonable timeframe (e.g. perhaps a matter of weeks if via post, perhaps days if via electronic distribution) would IMHO be an actionable act of bad faith.
It's not uncommon for large Android licensees (e.g. Samsung, HTC, etc.) to not make source or a valid offer available immediately. I think they're playing with fire there - it would only take a single contributor to the Linux kernel to bring suit, and they could easily lose rights to the kernel in perpetuity - a copyright holder may terminate the license for someone who is in violation.
"Waiting until summer vacation and then emailing the source-code to those who bothered to put forth a request as a split base-64-encoded compressed tarball is fine."
Uh, no. You're just making a semantic argument. The clear intent of the GPL is that source should be available as readily as the distributed object code.
"If they really want the traffic numbers, they can get them from Comcast and other cable networks. "
Huh, that would be much less accurate than Neilsen, How does a Comcast know who in a residence is watching TV, or even if they are at all? The only visibility they might have is when channels are changed and when the box is turned on/off. If someone turns the TV off when they go to bed but leaves the cable box on, Comcast might conclude that 3AM infomercials are extremely popular.
And yet, the issue is reportedly caused by the batteries draining, so it apparently breaks even if "it is powered by the thermostat line." Not sure how that happens - sounds like someone used software where they should have used hardware.
...and the 2nd Amendment says the people have a right to bear arms. Just as people argue that there are "common sense" infringements of that right, why not similar for the press? For example, I'd like to see perfumed inserts outlawed, just like "cop killer" bullets. To be part of the "free press," should require a journalism degree, just like a license is needed in most states to carry a concealed weapon. Publications should be limited to 10 pages, just like firearm magazines are limited to 10 rounds in some locations. Why not outlaw high speed presses, which amplify the damage done by irresponsible journalists, just as automatic weapons are basically outlawed? It also obviously doesn't cover radio, TV or Internet, since the founding fathers couldn't have imagined those things, so they can obviously be regulated, just like newer firearms.
It's just common sense, and entirely Constitutional based on precedent.
"If you do that, then you will be helping big movie companies who will feel free to make blockbuster movies from authors without paying them a single cent."
You mean like how Disney ripped off the Brothers Grimm (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White), Carlo Collodi (Pinocchio), and others?
By not allowing works to fall into the public domain, culture is stolen from us.
Slashdot Mirror
Because your rights end where another's begin. You have a right to speak, but you do not have a right to interfere with the speech of others, nor do you have the right to force others to hear your speech. You're only out of earshot for those who chose not to be in earshot. It sounds like you're more interested in being disruptive than speaking your mind.
"DB is the shell and 9 is the number of pins. Therefore, a DB9 is a DB25 with most of the pins missing."
Huh? No. It's still a DB-25. It's the number of contact positions, not the number of contacts actually installed in the shell.
PPP ECP (RFC 1968) is a common one.
Blades the size of the Trump ego.
FTFY.
But, think of the children (aka "congress").
Fortinet?
Perhaps they should simply ask the NSA, they should know exactly when the backdoor stopped working on any particular site.
First, most cell phone companies have explicit privacy policies, so there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Second, the cops have no license to transmit on cellular frequencies - so can't legally use a Stingray without a warrant, regardless. (when an individual uses a cell phone, they're transmitting under authority of the carrier's license)
Elisa could pass the Turing test if the competition was timothy.
Note that the summary doesn't say what questions were actually asked, it just provides conclusions.
So, were people asked "Smartphones have become very popular in the past 10 years. If you were buying a gun, would you consider a smartgun if they were available?" or were they asked "Would you consider buying a gun which used technology which made it less reliable, might allow others to disable it remotely, and could fail at a critical time due to a dead battery, but was potentially safer when used incorrectly?"
Oh, the study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (yes, named after famous anti-gun nut Michael Bloomberg)? They have a Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research under them. They're part of a move to rephrase what those fighting against civil liberties are doing, so instead of "gun control" it's now referred to as a public health issue - "gun safety." Think of the children.
How quaint that you think physical site visits are the only form of maintenance. You obviously know nothing about operating communications infrastructure.
"Hey, dumbass, guess what. Voice communication uses more data than texts or video streaming,"
Hey, AC, guess what? You're extremely wrong. A full telco fidelity G.711 voice stream uses ~64 kbps (unidirectional). The recommended speech codec for VoLTE is G.722.2, which provides HD audio in <24 kbps. What video streaming are you doing in a 64 k channel? You can't even do decent stereo audio with that.
Googletard. Check Yahoo finance.
You have that backwards. It will be called "5G" because it's the 5th Generation of cellular technology. Your comment is obviously in reference to the difference between the ITU-R and carrier definitions of 4G. The ITU based its definition not on generations of technology, but on performance metrics - trading technical correctness for marketing. AFAIK, the ITU hasn't even bothered to try to define 5G. 5G has been defined by a different group though, NGMN. But they too are focused on metrics and not technical generations.
"maybe I'm missing it"
Yep. Wireless is a shared medium, so more bandwidth allows not only higher speed for one user, but more users at the same performance. If demand stays the same, then more supply will lower prices. Just conjecture, but it may also increase battery life, since less time will be needed per bit.
Are you still happy with your 640K of memory, which should be enough for anyone?
Sorry, your answer doesn't count unless you show the math.
Verizon is consistently rated as having the best network in the US. That costs money to build out, maintain, and upgrade.
Currently, Sprint is losing money, T-Mo's profit margin is 1.68%, ATT's is 3.68%. Verizon's is 7.86%. Companies which don't have infrastructure of that scale to build and maintain: Apple's margin is 22.85%, MSFT 13.52%, GOOG 22.86%.
Your implication that VZW is vastly overcharging simply doesn't fit the facts, but does make a good populist sound bite.
I'd like to know who the idiots are that respond and make spam profitable. Really, these enablers are ultimately responsible for spam and should also receive condemnation.
"The Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping occurred under BUSH, not Obama."
That's a very biased statement, since both have happened under both administrations, so the "not Obama" part is incorrect.
If I benchmark a common office task, like typing War and Peace into Microsoft Word, I find that these new processors run no faster than an old IBM PC/XT with a 4.77 MHz Intel 8088.
"There's no time constraint how quickly they must respond to a request."
We can assume you're referring to GPL, since the Apache doesn't require one to provide source, although you do need to provide a copy of the license along with attribution, which seems to be where that violation occurs.
For GPL, any distribution must be accompanied with the source, or with an offer to provide the source. There's no room for any delay, which is a time constraint. Not making good on an offer of source within a reasonable timeframe (e.g. perhaps a matter of weeks if via post, perhaps days if via electronic distribution) would IMHO be an actionable act of bad faith.
It's not uncommon for large Android licensees (e.g. Samsung, HTC, etc.) to not make source or a valid offer available immediately. I think they're playing with fire there - it would only take a single contributor to the Linux kernel to bring suit, and they could easily lose rights to the kernel in perpetuity - a copyright holder may terminate the license for someone who is in violation.
"Waiting until summer vacation and then emailing the source-code to those who bothered to put forth a request as a split base-64-encoded compressed tarball is fine."
Uh, no. You're just making a semantic argument. The clear intent of the GPL is that source should be available as readily as the distributed object code.
"If they really want the traffic numbers, they can get them from Comcast and other cable networks. "
Huh, that would be much less accurate than Neilsen, How does a Comcast know who in a residence is watching TV, or even if they are at all? The only visibility they might have is when channels are changed and when the box is turned on/off. If someone turns the TV off when they go to bed but leaves the cable box on, Comcast might conclude that 3AM infomercials are extremely popular.
And yet, the issue is reportedly caused by the batteries draining, so it apparently breaks even if "it is powered by the thermostat line." Not sure how that happens - sounds like someone used software where they should have used hardware.
...and the 2nd Amendment says the people have a right to bear arms. Just as people argue that there are "common sense" infringements of that right, why not similar for the press? For example, I'd like to see perfumed inserts outlawed, just like "cop killer" bullets. To be part of the "free press," should require a journalism degree, just like a license is needed in most states to carry a concealed weapon. Publications should be limited to 10 pages, just like firearm magazines are limited to 10 rounds in some locations. Why not outlaw high speed presses, which amplify the damage done by irresponsible journalists, just as automatic weapons are basically outlawed? It also obviously doesn't cover radio, TV or Internet, since the founding fathers couldn't have imagined those things, so they can obviously be regulated, just like newer firearms.
It's just common sense, and entirely Constitutional based on precedent.
Copyright is a specific power given to government by the Constitution.
x11, x12. Whatever it takes.
"If you do that, then you will be helping big movie companies who will feel free to make blockbuster movies from authors without paying them a single cent."
You mean like how Disney ripped off the Brothers Grimm (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White), Carlo Collodi (Pinocchio), and others?
By not allowing works to fall into the public domain, culture is stolen from us.