the subsidized handset business models of the US carriers are viable, just not universally popular. There's a difference.
I'm not really sure which laws you mean by "such laws", exactly, but if you mean the DMCA, it's being used in a much wider scope than originally intended. That means it's vague, which makes it unenforceable and potentially unconstitutional, depending on the enforcement action taken. Additionally, whenever you have an entity in a section of government not located squarely in the Judicial branch making decisions on what is and isn't covered by a specific law, you have a clear invitation for judicial review. The LoC isn't the final say here, if the ban on unlocking new phones is actually enforced, the law as it applies to the unlocking activity is going to get reviewed by judges.
they've had an inflatable module on orbit for something like 4 years - it's pretty well proven, and much cheaper to put into orbit than fixed-side vehicles. (And as for the idea that something might pop it, if debris is going to poke a hole in a vehicle at *orbital speeds*, it's going to go through kevlar just as easy as it's going to go through the metal the existing space station components are made of.)
this is exactly why I never put anyone on ignore on web forums. (Well... I shouldn't say *never*... it's exceedingly rare, anyway - and only if the person is obviously delusional and belligerent in their communication with me. If they form their arguments well, though, I'm going to read it for comprehension.)
If you don't agree with me, then persuade me as to why I'm wrong... if you're rational, I'll listen. (read, whatever.)
oh, it's most certainly part of Texas, and integrally so... Texas is big enough that there are many different cultural regions, and Austin is just one of those regions. (Hell, Austin proper has a different culture than the suburbs where I live - we left central Austin for the suburbs about a year after getting here.) But, as a native Arizonan who moved to the Austin area 7 years ago, my observation is that part of what makes Texas "Texasy" is the acceptance that your neighboring town/county has the freedom to be as wacky as they want to be, as long as they keep it on their side of the fence, so to speak. Tolerance, live and let live and all that. Austin, in an odd twist from what you're led to think, leans the opposite way and enforces a lot more intolerant rules on what individual neighbors can and can't do than the surrounding areas. The rest of Texas just knowingly nods Austin's way in a "let 'em be" attitude.
so, I guess if you're measuring tolerance (at the governmental regulatory level), Austin is less tolerant, and therefore less "Texasy" than the rest of the state... but I know that's not what you had in mind when you talked about being "part" of Texas... nobody ever really seems to - especially the native Austinites, who I find are remarkably often unable to see themselves from an external perspective. Most folks "from" Austin are focused on the social aspect of their way of life, at the expense of economic and other aspects - even though they seem to think they have a good grasp on the big picture.
This guy fits in well with Texas as a whole - do your own thing, make money at it, have fun. That's not at all something limited to Austin culture. The fact, though, that he's doing it with alcohol... now that's impressive in Texas... we still have many weird Southern-style restrictions and controls on alcohol as a holdover from prohibition that haven't yet been repealed... like (last I checked) you can't both brew beer and sell it commercially, it has to go through a distributor first.
as long as I don't have to break out that little red prism thing you held up to the screen to unlock the game (C64 version, dunno if the others had something similar), I'm all in. I lost that thing about 3 months after I had the game, and I only ever got to jump galaxies once.
with so many dots, you'd think there would be a much higher incidence of gun violence in that neighborhood, right? That's what the newspaper is apparently trying to make you think, anyway. After all, guns lead to innocents' death, right?
That, or the goal of the newspaper is to instill shock and fear into the public about the "proliferation" of weapons in their community without taking the time to analyze the data in context, hoping that the readers will just take the newspaper's word that this is the "whole story". If the idea that guns lead to innocents' death is true, then the number of dots in this map should indicate a disproportionate level of innocents' death per square mile. Without that data, this is pure sensationalism for the sake of forcing their neighbors to disarm.
The real truth to the data shows the VAST MAJORITY of gun owners are responsible and law abiding (they registered their guns), and therefore presumably non-violent (they'd be in prison and would no longer have a permit to own a gun if they used their gun illegally.) Exactly the opposite of the point that the newspaper was trying to make. This data plot should be relabeled "number of registered gun owners who are not responsible for the death of an innocent person."
you mean Larry Ellison's robotically-stored consciousness isn't going to like this... (you know, the part of him that will survive the next 1.5 million years)
I'va always argued that charging extra for "hate" crimes is a slippery slope, leading logically to actual application of thoughtcrime. This seems to validate my thoughts on that... even without specific threats of imminent harm, it's possible now to be charged with something merely for "having intent", which can't be proven without a confession. (It's early, that probably doesn't make as much sense as it does in my head... If you have a notebook filled with specific threats, then you have evidence of a threat... simply having components that might be assembled into a dangerous item is not a specific threat, and the fallback of the police is then to determine and charge for "intent", which can never be known without something like that notebook or a confession.)
I teach my children to avoid contact with the police at all costs. It's not worth the trouble to deal with a cop if they happen to be in a bad mood, even if you've done nothing wrong, and I have to just assume they're always in a bad mood.
I know almost nothing about the NY Daily News, but if they have a news story about weapons followed immediately by an active plea to fill out a petition to ban weapons, I'd have to say their motives for printing not only the story itself but the uncited photograph fall very short of journalistic neutral positioning... so I gotta see that uncited photo for what it is: unrelated unless otherwise specified.
"Here's a photo of some explosives in a basement. I'm not saying it is from this kid's basement, but I'm not NOT saying that either, and we're leading with the photo, anyway. You figure it out."
actually, no, the sound of a cycling shotgun will not chase most home invaders away. Most of those types of criminals are either high enough or stupid enough not to recognize the sound for what it is - especially since they're not expecting to hear the sound at all... (and not all shotguns sound like the stock Foley SFX from the movies). But, if you start off with a very loud "I have a shotgun aimed at your head, asshole" followed by racking a round, *then* they'll know what's happening. But you've probably just ejected a perfectly good cartridge just for dramatic effect when all you really had to do was turn on the lights so he could see you coming. This gives him an opportunity to flee, which is by most accounts the best outcome, if only so you don't have to call for someone to come replace your carpet and drapes in the morning.
Of course, the most effective way to let a home intruder know that you have a shotgun, if that is the primary goal, is to cause it to make a brief flash of light followed in quick succession with a very loud bang. If you have it pointed in the proper direction, he'll even *feel* it.
but without the bureaucracy, how would those government workers in the Solar Panel Installation Licensing Department feed their families? You don't expect them to find meaningful, productive work, do you? The SPILD provides jobs where none others would exist otherwise!
additionally, the conflict between application of case law between the various Federal Circuits needs to be resolved; someone living in Illinois might get an entirely different set of Federal case law applied than someone in Arizona, and at this stage it's unreasonable to allow that to continue.
Actually, Google has a track record of doing exactly that. They just fought (and lost) a case this last week to a patent troll company. In it, the jury awarded a 3.5% royalty of (bear with me here) the amount of demonstrated revenue increase for the previous year of infringement for U.S. revenues, plus 3.5% going forward until the patent expires. This amounts to an estimated $700-900 million over the next 4 years. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/08/idUS136757+08-Nov-2012+HUG20121108
They could have settled for about half that based on the offers the patent holder made, but they went to the mattresses, and lost big time, even though the evidence was CLEARLY in favor of the patent inventor. (He was CTO at Lycos, who owned the patent before they went tits up and sold it back to the inventor, who formed the company which sued Google.)
So, even when Google KNOWS they're infringing on a valid patent, they still fight it to the end. Why would they start settling cases in which they know they are not infringing a patent?
Well, we certainly don't want fewer sources of opinion, so having them disappear entirely would not necessarily better for everyone... I think their effort is a good way to kick Google in the balls and encourage them to start paying the folks who make them legitimate in the first place.
After all, if it weren't for the news outlets, Google would have nothing to link to (as far as news, anyway)
you could always get a Google Voice number and not forward it anywhere (or set it to perma-do-not-disturb) - you'd still be able to browse through voicemails if necessary through an email interface
Slashdot Mirror
the subsidized handset business models of the US carriers are viable, just not universally popular. There's a difference.
I'm not really sure which laws you mean by "such laws", exactly, but if you mean the DMCA, it's being used in a much wider scope than originally intended. That means it's vague, which makes it unenforceable and potentially unconstitutional, depending on the enforcement action taken. Additionally, whenever you have an entity in a section of government not located squarely in the Judicial branch making decisions on what is and isn't covered by a specific law, you have a clear invitation for judicial review. The LoC isn't the final say here, if the ban on unlocking new phones is actually enforced, the law as it applies to the unlocking activity is going to get reviewed by judges.
yeah, my first thought was, "Again?"
This. Zealots never seem to look past their own interests.
you mean the CMOS battery?
they've had an inflatable module on orbit for something like 4 years - it's pretty well proven, and much cheaper to put into orbit than fixed-side vehicles. (And as for the idea that something might pop it, if debris is going to poke a hole in a vehicle at *orbital speeds*, it's going to go through kevlar just as easy as it's going to go through the metal the existing space station components are made of.)
this is exactly why I never put anyone on ignore on web forums. (Well... I shouldn't say *never*... it's exceedingly rare, anyway - and only if the person is obviously delusional and belligerent in their communication with me. If they form their arguments well, though, I'm going to read it for comprehension.)
If you don't agree with me, then persuade me as to why I'm wrong... if you're rational, I'll listen. (read, whatever.)
oh, it's most certainly part of Texas, and integrally so... Texas is big enough that there are many different cultural regions, and Austin is just one of those regions. (Hell, Austin proper has a different culture than the suburbs where I live - we left central Austin for the suburbs about a year after getting here.) But, as a native Arizonan who moved to the Austin area 7 years ago, my observation is that part of what makes Texas "Texasy" is the acceptance that your neighboring town/county has the freedom to be as wacky as they want to be, as long as they keep it on their side of the fence, so to speak. Tolerance, live and let live and all that. Austin, in an odd twist from what you're led to think, leans the opposite way and enforces a lot more intolerant rules on what individual neighbors can and can't do than the surrounding areas. The rest of Texas just knowingly nods Austin's way in a "let 'em be" attitude.
so, I guess if you're measuring tolerance (at the governmental regulatory level), Austin is less tolerant, and therefore less "Texasy" than the rest of the state... but I know that's not what you had in mind when you talked about being "part" of Texas... nobody ever really seems to - especially the native Austinites, who I find are remarkably often unable to see themselves from an external perspective. Most folks "from" Austin are focused on the social aspect of their way of life, at the expense of economic and other aspects - even though they seem to think they have a good grasp on the big picture.
This guy fits in well with Texas as a whole - do your own thing, make money at it, have fun. That's not at all something limited to Austin culture. The fact, though, that he's doing it with alcohol... now that's impressive in Texas... we still have many weird Southern-style restrictions and controls on alcohol as a holdover from prohibition that haven't yet been repealed... like (last I checked) you can't both brew beer and sell it commercially, it has to go through a distributor first.
I had to look it up, it was called a Lenslok device:
http://torrentfreak.com/crazy-video-game-drm-prism-1980s-style-080617/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenslok
(and, evidently, not all were red.)
as long as I don't have to break out that little red prism thing you held up to the screen to unlock the game (C64 version, dunno if the others had something similar), I'm all in. I lost that thing about 3 months after I had the game, and I only ever got to jump galaxies once.
Post-battle FF7 music, made me smile. :) /nerds are awesome
with so many dots, you'd think there would be a much higher incidence of gun violence in that neighborhood, right? That's what the newspaper is apparently trying to make you think, anyway. After all, guns lead to innocents' death, right?
That, or the goal of the newspaper is to instill shock and fear into the public about the "proliferation" of weapons in their community without taking the time to analyze the data in context, hoping that the readers will just take the newspaper's word that this is the "whole story". If the idea that guns lead to innocents' death is true, then the number of dots in this map should indicate a disproportionate level of innocents' death per square mile. Without that data, this is pure sensationalism for the sake of forcing their neighbors to disarm.
The real truth to the data shows the VAST MAJORITY of gun owners are responsible and law abiding (they registered their guns), and therefore presumably non-violent (they'd be in prison and would no longer have a permit to own a gun if they used their gun illegally.) Exactly the opposite of the point that the newspaper was trying to make. This data plot should be relabeled "number of registered gun owners who are not responsible for the death of an innocent person."
you mean Larry Ellison's robotically-stored consciousness isn't going to like this... (you know, the part of him that will survive the next 1.5 million years)
I'va always argued that charging extra for "hate" crimes is a slippery slope, leading logically to actual application of thoughtcrime. This seems to validate my thoughts on that... even without specific threats of imminent harm, it's possible now to be charged with something merely for "having intent", which can't be proven without a confession. (It's early, that probably doesn't make as much sense as it does in my head... If you have a notebook filled with specific threats, then you have evidence of a threat... simply having components that might be assembled into a dangerous item is not a specific threat, and the fallback of the police is then to determine and charge for "intent", which can never be known without something like that notebook or a confession.)
I teach my children to avoid contact with the police at all costs. It's not worth the trouble to deal with a cop if they happen to be in a bad mood, even if you've done nothing wrong, and I have to just assume they're always in a bad mood.
well, of course toothpaste and shampoo are explosive - just ask the TSA
I know almost nothing about the NY Daily News, but if they have a news story about weapons followed immediately by an active plea to fill out a petition to ban weapons, I'd have to say their motives for printing not only the story itself but the uncited photograph fall very short of journalistic neutral positioning... so I gotta see that uncited photo for what it is: unrelated unless otherwise specified.
"Here's a photo of some explosives in a basement. I'm not saying it is from this kid's basement, but I'm not NOT saying that either, and we're leading with the photo, anyway. You figure it out."
actually, no, the sound of a cycling shotgun will not chase most home invaders away. Most of those types of criminals are either high enough or stupid enough not to recognize the sound for what it is - especially since they're not expecting to hear the sound at all... (and not all shotguns sound like the stock Foley SFX from the movies). But, if you start off with a very loud "I have a shotgun aimed at your head, asshole" followed by racking a round, *then* they'll know what's happening. But you've probably just ejected a perfectly good cartridge just for dramatic effect when all you really had to do was turn on the lights so he could see you coming. This gives him an opportunity to flee, which is by most accounts the best outcome, if only so you don't have to call for someone to come replace your carpet and drapes in the morning.
Of course, the most effective way to let a home intruder know that you have a shotgun, if that is the primary goal, is to cause it to make a brief flash of light followed in quick succession with a very loud bang. If you have it pointed in the proper direction, he'll even *feel* it.
but without the bureaucracy, how would those government workers in the Solar Panel Installation Licensing Department feed their families? You don't expect them to find meaningful, productive work, do you? The SPILD provides jobs where none others would exist otherwise!
additionally, the conflict between application of case law between the various Federal Circuits needs to be resolved; someone living in Illinois might get an entirely different set of Federal case law applied than someone in Arizona, and at this stage it's unreasonable to allow that to continue.
brilliant.
I learn something every day from /. :)
my Great-grandmother... but that's about it.
Actually, Google has a track record of doing exactly that. They just fought (and lost) a case this last week to a patent troll company. In it, the jury awarded a 3.5% royalty of (bear with me here) the amount of demonstrated revenue increase for the previous year of infringement for U.S. revenues, plus 3.5% going forward until the patent expires. This amounts to an estimated $700-900 million over the next 4 years. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/08/idUS136757+08-Nov-2012+HUG20121108
They could have settled for about half that based on the offers the patent holder made, but they went to the mattresses, and lost big time, even though the evidence was CLEARLY in favor of the patent inventor. (He was CTO at Lycos, who owned the patent before they went tits up and sold it back to the inventor, who formed the company which sued Google.)
So, even when Google KNOWS they're infringing on a valid patent, they still fight it to the end. Why would they start settling cases in which they know they are not infringing a patent?
Unmarked != undercover... or is that what Aussies call their unmarked cars?
Well, we certainly don't want fewer sources of opinion, so having them disappear entirely would not necessarily better for everyone... I think their effort is a good way to kick Google in the balls and encourage them to start paying the folks who make them legitimate in the first place.
After all, if it weren't for the news outlets, Google would have nothing to link to (as far as news, anyway)
you could always get a Google Voice number and not forward it anywhere (or set it to perma-do-not-disturb) - you'd still be able to browse through voicemails if necessary through an email interface
Your move, Apple.