The problem with this is the judge is taking it upon himself to decide there is no proper basis for such a penalty, when it is clearly intended as a penalty - a disincentive to terminate the contract.
Honestly, you could probably argue these fees violate anti-trust law in the US if you get the right US District Court to agree with you that these fees are less about subsidized phones and more about preventing customers from switching services. The cell phone companies have always resisted anything that made leaving them easier (phone number portability comes to mind). There are plenty of ways to make these fees more legitimate, as in the prorated fees used by the other major providers. This is less likely to draw legal complaints.
What is next? A court reviewing a software license agreement that has a large penalty clause in it? It seems that a "penalty" that is not identified as a penalty but stated to the customer as a cost recovery, a pro-rated subsidy or something else would be a problem. But every cell phone agreement I have seen says it is basically a penalty.
Yes, but the penalty has to still conform to law. Just because you put something into a contract does not make it legal. The legality of contract clauses from cell companies and software makers (since you brought them up) have been contested and in some cases defeated in court as being unfair or out right illegal.
This said, the contract is silent on the purpose of the fee; however, the cell service providers have states repeatedly it is a means to protect their subsidies of the phones. As I stated above, the court is seeing this for what it is, total bullshit. So to recap, a contract does not make that which is illegal legal and a non-prorated termination fee does not stand up well when your main argument is cell phone subsidies cost money.
1. Big planes can get lighter through the use of materials like carbon fiber.
2. Big planes are more efficient for fuel on a per passenger basis then small planes.
3. Big planes are far more comfortable then their miniature counterparts.
4. Long distance travel via car and/or motorcycle takes too long and is terribly inefficient for one (and sometimes two or three people).
747 and the big Airbus A380 are both really meant for long haul international flight. I honestly don't think I've seen many (if any) 747s that were being used strictly for cross-country. The biggest "bird" you regularly see cross the US is the 767 or the 777,
Honestly, those planes are largely reduced to carrying more cross-country flights between major hubs, while planes in the 737 range are doing mid-range travel (or all of Southwest's flying) and smaller jets (Embraer and Bombardier) are filling in the regional and short haul flights.
I think you need to rethink your little contradictory statement a bit and look at the reality of air travel.
This looks to be a very interesting situation. MS being watched closely while Apple and F/OSS is not. One is a monopoly while the others are not. I think that is fairly ample reasoning right there.
Should MS' new OS come up with a feature that is the only OS supporting a feature that is part of a newly regulated banking industry security system, how would that play out in court? Would you like to re-write that in English maybe? Features like what you describe are not the issue that has gotten MS in trouble in the past. It is bundling of things like Internet Explorer and Media Player in such a way they act as "integral" parts of the OS that were not easily removed or replaced by third-party applications, thus using their monopoly in the desktop PC market to stretch into other areas.
If the OS does not come up with anything new, and only adds performance hits, bloatware, and other usability problems, will the consumer throw off MS for other options? If that happens, can MS blame the government? They've already blamed users for software issues in the past. I somehow doubt they are above blaming the government for any problems that may or may not come up.
Somehow, I don't see this working out too well. Even if people just 'think' the government is putting in a super secret back door to spy with, MS' revenue stream will dry up fast. Foreign governments, banks, and businesses will not want that kind of spying going on in their data centers. And in that same vein, why would US Government facilities use any operating system with known back doors. Let's put some thought into this. There are thousands (if not millions) of government issues machines running Windows operating systems. Now, do you think the government would risk a back door becoming known in such a way that it would compromise every last one of those systems? Or do you honestly believe that Microsoft would push out a total secret build just for government users. Even if they did, don't you think such a build would be readily available through your favorite Torrent Tracker website. I think a fairly well-known quote sums it up quite well, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Knowing politicians and governments the way we do (when wearing tinfoil hats) if we know this much about how Windows7 is going to be developed, what do we NOT know? You already know nothing. You know nothing about your politicians or government. I think you may be crossing that line between "HaHa Funny" paranoid and "Batshit Crazy" paranoid.
I just don't see this as being good for the industry as a whole. A bad precedent, or so it looks. So it is better to let an abusive monopoly run amok and be totally unchecked. This isn't about secret government backdoors and spying on citizens. Those types of deals are not run out in front of the press for all too see. If the goal was to introduce these things it would be done quietly without anyone knowing it and a bare minimum of developers knowing either. The key to any good secret is having as few people knowing about it as possible. I mean hell, at some point it is no longer a secret when everyone knows, right?
Hate to dual reply. But the prices they list are for the UK Version to be imported by Expansys. Something engadget previously covered as $610. So, I would have to say that $399 if far more likely to be accurate based on what it is intended to compete with.
To answer your question, yes that would limit the patent greatly; however, it is important to note this was an international application and sent to many countries. Believe it or not, there are quite a few countries whose systems are more broken then the US one. So much so, it would not be impossible for this patent to have been issued there without that caveat. Quite likely that caveat was added in order to get the patent approved by combining several claims to create the one.
For the record, I am an ex-patent examiner for the USPTO.
If ORF was calling themselves "Kleenex" or some other brand name, that would be understandable Actually, thanks to a little something known as genericized trademark, they actually wouldn't be in too much trouble if their name were Kleenex. It could be easily argued that Kleenex is genericized since the word is almost synonymous with tissues now. Trademark law works quite interesting in that manner. If you do not properly defend your mark and it becomes "generic" then your rights to the mark could be lost. (Now, if only we adopted a similar measure with Patents but that is a different story.)
Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. It seems that by my reading of this, if there is a position not pre-existing in the government (at the time of the constitutions writing), Congress has the power to place the appointment of these "inferior officers" in the hands of one of the aforementioned individuals. In doing so, it appears Congress has interpreted "Heads of Departments" to be the Director of the Patent Office, as per Congress passed 35 USC Part 1, Ch. 1, Sect. 6:
(a) Establishment and Composition.-- There shall be in the United States Patent and Trademark Office a Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The Director, the Commissioner for Patents, the Commissioner for Trademarks, and the administrative patent judges shall constitute the Board. The administrative patent judges shall be persons of competent legal knowledge and scientific ability who are appointed by the Director. I think John Duffy should stick to things he knows (i.e. intellectual property) and stop trying to interpret the language of the constitution. In addition, the I don't believe that "Departments" are clearly defined within the constitution, so I think we can all safely assume this means nothing. I think we just have a case of someone being a bit overzealous in their interpretation of the Constitution.
Except for the simple fact that what is considered an obscenity or curse today, may not be considered one in the future. Heck, it even varies by locales. How many Americans would consider "bloody" to false into a "vulgar" category? What about Fag? Did I just hurt someone's feelings or did I just talk a cigarette? (Of course, how vulgar others see these words might be debatable as well.) What about archaic words, like "Humbug", which themselves were once considered vulgar; however, most people probably only know its usage from A Christmas Carol.
What are those seven-words you must hate...oh yes: Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Tits.
Listen, words are just a combination of sounds to which we have given some meaning. In the end they are just words. Speech is a complex beast and there is a lot more than what we say, but there is also how we say it. By simply acting like some words are evil based solely on some present-day view of their meaning is absurd. Heck, even some of those same words listed above are considered a lot less "vulgar" today, then they were over 30 years ago.
I don't think that vulgarity is a substitute of any type for good vocabulary, but I also think it is ignorant to assume those who might swear lack some mastery of their own language. I think there are far worse things than "foul language". Besides, which happened first, society's change to using words once considered vulgar or media's use of vulgar language? Remember, your language is always changing and evolving, whether or not the changes are for the better is debatable.
I will admit up front that this is probably going to turn into a rant, but it is bullshit comments like this and companies like yours that kept me from getting good jobs out of college. Everyone expected people to have experience (even some wanting "entry-level" people), so instead of picking candidates who were taught to think in College, they hire the schmuck who only learned his one skill and heaven forbid they should ever try to ask him to learn anything new.
I have a great ability to pick up on new items rather quickly. When I took my job as an examiner at the patent office (which I hated and therefore left), I picked up the law and the procedures very quickly. So well in fact that some of the senior examiners would ask if I'd ever dealt with patent law before. I have always been able to pick up on new ideas rather easily and learn quickly.
I had job interviews where people saw this and decided to pass on me for someone with more experience. One even told the head-hunter that if they could either a) hire two people or b) had time to train/teach me, they would have taken me. This shows that I obviously did something better then the person they did hire. It also shows that I potentially interviewed better as well.
The fact is that you probably either a) did a poor job advertising the job and set the experience bar unreasonably high (particularly compared to the salary) or b) you really managed to do what so many places that passed me over did, failed to see potential. So instead of meeting your hiring goal, you have fewer employees, who are probably overworked and probably looking to leave your employ as soon as possible.
I am grateful that one company did see the potential that I could have and have rewarded me nicely for my service thus far. If more companies followed this sort of ideology, perhaps more people like me would be employed and happy in our positions.
How often does a game console crash? PC? This has always been touted as some sort of advantage of the console over the PC; however, I think the X-Box360 failures have sort of highlighted this as not being as lopsided as the console makers would have you believe. In the end, system stability is largely a variable based on the user system and setup. My PC has been known to run for weeks on end without the need for a reboot and without a crashing issue.
For me being able to care for my own system is important also. If it breaks I like being able to choose if I upgrade or replace. Being in control is important that's why I like Gentoo. I think this is something that is lost on some people. Not only do you often have the ability to fix your PC problem yourself (where this is more difficult to impossible with a console), it is also far easier to get PC service without shipping off your system. From my experience, console repairs typically take longer to perform and often require the shipping of the console back to a manufacturer for repair or replacement (more likely the latter).
From my research to get a console, which only plays games. It would cost me 300+ $ (American) to buy new.
To buy a PC which does more then just play games. It would cost me 500+ to buy new. (A bit more then basic) I built my own power gameing system for 1500$. Price is an interesting debate. You typically will have a higher entry point for PCs then you will for consoles. Of course, you have added functionality with a PC, something consoles have been trying to gain on to as well. This is why you see some of the console makers pushing multimedia services of their consoles in an attempt to show it is more then just a game-playing box. (Of course, the sony execs seems to have a hard time saying exactly what their system was.)
For me I learned games on the PC I know the mouse/keyboard Human Interface Device (HID). I've not played many console game systems, I know they have custom controllers for the HID. The only console I tried that was intuitive to me in the least was the WII. This is another interesting argument that is often had between console and PC gamers. I think there are some games that just do not lend themselves well to the console. In particular RTS comes to mind. Here is a game where fast key strokes and multiple commands are often required to be successful. This means a console with only a controller is very limited.
People have also made arguments that FPS is better on the PC (you can get higher frame rates and some prefer the mouse + keyboard combo). The same could be said for MMOs. (I think they've managed to successfully simplify most RPGs on consoles; however, an MMO where timing and networking are important still feels better on a PC. I think the number of MMOs on console vs. on PC shows the industry believes this as well.)
At the same time, there are games where simplified control allows the console to strive. I think this is why most sports titles are better sold on consoles then the PC. Platform games also feel more natural on the console. Granted, these can be made to work on PCs with the help of additional game controllers; however, this is another piece of clutter for a desk.
In the end, I think both PC and consoles have their place in the gaming world. I own a PC for gaming (mostly FPS and Lord of the Rings: Online), and I own a console (the Wii) for various game types.
Yeah, here are some reasons this law won't work:
1. This theory holds quite true. The fact of the matter is the internet is full of idiots and assholes (as is the rest of the world).
2. There was this old saying we knew as kids, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me." (Or some variation thereof.) The fact is that she reacted to words. To a person she didn't really know and never interacted with outside of myspace.
3. Someone please show me a case where someone using words or pranks to "bully" someone not online resulted in a tragedy like this occurring and the "bullier" being tried for any crime. I think you'll be hard pressed to find one that isn't a fringe example.
Now to your points:
1. I know people who are "emotional basket cases" well into their 20s. Ignoring this though, how many of those "emotional basket case" girls kill themselves when they are dumped, either in reality or virtually? One girl killing herself does not a trend make.
2. Hang out with a lot of teenagers? I could've cared less about "social standing". I know others who had this same mentality. While it might seem "cruel" and this is probably in a realm where adults should stay out of influence, what she did is not illegal and should not be illegal. Jokes, pranks, name-calling happen every day. Thousand of kids live to tell about. Only a few kill themselves and/or others.
3. This is an issue with the parents and it largely centers around the view that they are unapproachable. I have known teenagers who were willing to discuss issues with their parents, including things that were bothering them. Parents should be somewhat involved in their children's lives, including having discussions with them if they feel something is not right.
4. This relates to a parenting issue again and again is related to item #3.
If a community decides to ostracize an individual over an incident like this, then it is well within their right; however, I do believe it shows some lack of thought behind their actions. I think our society is increasingly becoming one where we find other people to blame for our troubles. This woman's actions may have had some indirect influence on the child's death; however, the child obviously had some other issues to be dealt with if the "solution" she came up with was suicide. I refuse to place all the blame on this one individual.
While this event may have ended in tragedy, I do not believe we should be legislating against this sort of behavior; especially with laws that will invariably be poorly worded and will only result in hampering discussion online. I would like to think we don't want to live in a "nanny state".
Damn, ya got me there....
My mailman is a "reasonable republican", and he has no power whatsoever, but DAMNIT it is Liberal Bias when the Media doesn't give him Equal TV Coverage.
Oh yes, because every republican in the federal politics right now is some far-right leaning, borderline fascist, neo-conservative trying to push their religious ways on the rest of us. As you've probably heard by now if you hung out around/. long enough, there is a Republican running for president and a Texas Congressman who is more Libertarian then Republican. He believes in smaller government and less spending. Oh right, he also hasn't supported Bush much, if at all. Yet, he has continually be relegated to obscurity even from the very onset of the 2008 Presidential campaigns.
Excuse me, but citing Fox News of committing Liberal Bias.... wow... just wow. Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter were made into national media personalities BY conservatives FOR conservatives. Liberals did not pick Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, liberals did not make Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter national media personalities, liberals aren't the audience giving them ratings to stay on TV. The "the media has a liberal bias" people selected and eagerly consume Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter.
Actually, I think if you read the OP post again. You will see what he is trying to say is that the mention of these people continually by the "liberal media" is more evidence of their bias. They attack these fringe individuals who have extremists views and make easy targets, while at the same time making the entirety of the "conservative media" look equally as nutty.
Who? Where? Anyone of any actual national importance and power?
I guess maybe there's Ron Paul, but he lies somewhere beween Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter on the radical raving nutcase scale. And aside from him and Kucinich providing comic relief in the presidential race, he has about as much power as my mailman.
Ah yes, a brilliant method to attack anyone whose views you do not agree with, call them a "radical raving nutcase". So, does this mean everyone who supports "third parties" in the presidential campaigns should also fall into this area since they don't hold one of the two mainstream political ideologies. Oh wait, I am sorry, the singular mainstream political ideology. The two parties that we have decided to continually vote for look more and more like each other with every passing election. Republicans stopped thinking about less-spending long ago, and Democrats stopped being strictly about helping the little people and the environment long ago.
Seriously, do you think a political party led by money can have any clue what the people living in the low-income areas of Chicago, New York, or D.C. actually want/need from the government? The fact is current politics are RULED by big money. If you have the money, you can get elected. Of course, in order to do that you need to weasel your way closer and closer to the middle, which is why the parties have become so similar. To make matters worse, you have all fallen into this idea that any vote outside of these two parties is a wasted vote. If more people actually voted based on what they believe and actually used their brain some more on election day (and the rest of the year), I think this country would easily support a third or fourth party.
Because that is the the position of the majority of important influential democrat politicians, and the position of the majorty of their voter supporters.
This is not true. It is used as a gimmick to get the poor vote, but most of them want absolutely nothing to do with a national health-care program. Some of those big money democrats that I mentioned before almost assuredly get money from health insurance companies and/or big pharma. Neither have these companies have anything to gain from national health care and most everything to lose. I don't know about the rest of the world, bu
I am far more upset about the apps added to the Touch. So, they want early adopters to pay $20 for apps that are in the new Touch (which is in no other way different), when they have no increased the price of the touch, so they are not showing an apparent "cost" to the new apps. (Granted, they've probably increased the margins since the touch launched.) This is what pisses me off. Apple once again proving they like screwing their early adopters (twice in the last year now). Oh well, too bad I got all those Apps free once I "jail breaked" (or whatever term to use) my Touch.
In Australia we have compulsary sufferage because we feel that having representation for those who don't feel like voting is more important than letting them spend another half hour on the lounge watching football every three years. If you want your entire electorate to be over 60 because they have nothing better to do, then enjoy what you have. After hearing college friends who were voting in their first election say they were voting a certain way SOLELY because that is the way their parents vote(d), I don't know how many of them I want voting. They are essentially giving their parents a second (or third or fourth, etc.) vote and showing no ability to make an informed decision in an election.
We have strict gun control because having a large bore semi-auto isn't as useful as knowing that muggers and bank theives don't have them. Oh, wait a minute while I stop laughing. You want a prime example of strict gun control laws failing a people then look at Washington, D.C. They have some of the strictest gun control laws in the United States, so much so that they are quite possibly in violation of the US Constitution; however, here is a city where crime is insane, including high numbers of gun-related crimes and one of the highest murder rates in the United States. Trust me, just because law-abiding citizen X doesn't have a gun doesn't mean that criminal Y will not have a gun. How many guns used in the commission of a crime do you think were legally obtained?
We pay other people's healthcare bills for the security of knowing that others will pay ours. I won't get into health care issues. Just know I am libertarian so I am sure you know where I stand on this.
We have censored computer games (no sexual violence) which I don't personally agree with, but that's mainly because of an unchangeable government act (introducing an R rating requires the unanamous agreement of 7 attorney generals). Well, I am glad you do not agree with it. I hope that we can manage to keep this sort of stupidity out of the US, even though it is getting harder. Thus far the courts have done a good job of putting a stop to any legislation that has been passed thus far and nationally such a law has never made it through congress.
Australia is far from perfect in many ways of course, but the desire to maximise an individual's freedom in the longterm by keeping one safe and healthy for long enough for one to use this freedom isn't a bad idea, if not perfectly executed all the time. No country is perfect, and I am not going to try to argue that any is. I will say the job of the government should not be to keep me "safe and healthy" and this responsibility should be maintained largely by the individuals. Compulsory seatbelt laws are total bullshit, for which I would love to hear why the government should be telling people to "buckle-up" (Or as they like to say state-side "Click It or Ticket" (TM)). I think a big problem (at least in the US and maybe elsewhere, I honestly don't know) is a lack of personal responsibility some people have. I think people expect too much from their government, and they are too quick to blame someone else for their problems. Now whether they blame the government or other people (who they want to sue) is up to each individual. It can be rare at times to find someone willing to accept the responsibility for their actions.
Yes, but you are trying to say it is expensive compared to what? A red laser pointer? I hate to burst your bubble, but greenlasers are much more expensive and have a totally different set of uses, one of which (sky pointing) they could have legitimately been doing and the chopper was dumb enough to fly into the bright green beam. (Hint, on a clear night, if they were continuously shining it, that beam would be rather visible from the ground or the sky.)
but Linux is written to be POSIX compliant, so while drivers are nice, Linux is basically no different than any other UNIX but for the license difference Are you saying POSIX compliance makes an operating system "UNIX"? If so, using that argument, Windows NT is like any other UNIX? Somehow I think people would disagree.
This sounds as bad as those "vinyl is better" arguments you hear from people when it comes to music. I guess the difference is you can sort of show how goes from an analog to digital format with the conversion of audio can affect quality. (Whether or not you can notice it is a different debate.) Here however, there is not some mysterious change in formats that alters the content of the material being read.
This boils down to a form vs. function matter. Reading is reading, whether in a book or on an electronic device. This is how I feel. I don't care how I get my reading, so long as I get it. I have not bought an e-reader of any type. This is probably because I have not found one that I consider "perfect". In the end, I think these things could have great use for reference materials if nothing else. I would love to have had this instead of thick, heavy textbooks in college.
Finally, a book today is hardly a "craft". It is a mass printed device that came out of a machine and was slammed between a couple of pieces of cardboard and held together with glue. The "mystique" of books (if it ever really existed) died sometime during the 20th century (if not a bit sooner).
I hear this argument all the time, and know people that pirate their movies / songs / whatever and they ALWAYS tell me this same thing. But the minute it becomes impossible to get whatever through elicit means, they seems to come up with the money for it. I call bullshit right back, and the rest of your post actually helps to prove the point. Each person has some predefined cost that they are willing to pay for certain items. This varies from person to person and item to item. Now, while not everyone who is pirating will not buy something, it is stupid to assume that everyone who pirates would buy it if no other means were available. (The GP and your post both deal in the absolute of each end of the spectrum. If nothing else, I have learned that very rarely do things work in absolutes.)
Let us look at Music, since it is relatively easy to deal with. Your average CD has a price in the range of $10-$15. Before iTunes (and competition), you effectively only had two ways to get music, purchase the CD or pirate it using some "nefarious" program (Napster was one of the first widespread ones.). With the advent of free (albeit "illegal") downloads, music purchases did not stop overnight. They actually still have not stopped. People had to way the cost between the one (or two) hits on an album and downloading them for free or spending the $10-$15 for an entire album, of which only two songs would be listened. Now, if the price came down, perhaps people would pay more for it. Some would still get it for free, but there would be others who would pay the reduced cost.
Your friend is the perfect example. He purchased the "lite" version of software because he did not see the value in paying $500 for the "full" version. Your friend even complained about the cost of the software and from the sound of it regretted the purchase. Now, this screams to me of someone who didn't want to spend the money, but they were effectively required to because of whatever "need" they may have.
Each and every time someone says someone won't pay for it, it means they simply don't want to pay for it and will avoid it at all costs, unless of course they can't and in which case, they will pay for it. This is not necessarily true. There are a few things I won't pay for. I have managed to stay out of a movie theater for over two years, and it looks like that will probably reach at least three years before it is broken. I won't ever spend money at a gas station for air. (Seriously, why should I pay for air, just because they have a compressor, and usually a crappy one at that.) I won't pay for bottled water (nor will I pay for any water at a restaurant and some have tried.). These might seem trivial but they are true. The other thing I won't do is pay for MS Windows separate from my PC. I have a single retail version I got for free from an MS rep in college, and two OEM licenses with my two Dell purchased PCs, but I will NEVER buy it to install on a system. (Of course, I run Linux in either single or dual boot configs on all my machines.)
These both happened near the same time and almost cost me tons of data:
1. Lost one of my 200 GB drives in my RAID0 (or as I like to call it AID) array. Nothing like trying to scrape off the data before the catastrophic failure of the disk. Luckily the loss was minimized.
2. My 60 GB laptop HDD failed during the same time period. I think I managed to get some of the data off before the drive went dead, but its not like I had many places to put it.
I know they are both pretty mundane, since they were both random drive failures. Since then, I install separate OS disks and data disks. This way failure of one doesn't been the death of the other, and I still have a place to restore data too before those awful noises stops with the death of my drive.
I find it interesting the woman who "washed away" her data. My generic (MicroCenter bulk) USB flash drive has gone through the washer three times and the dryer twice. Not lost any data, and I am actually using it now.
Absolutely, but there is nothing wrong with a rating system in general. Indeed, this is rather true. Ratings systems have their uses; however, it is important for them to be used appropriately. It does not good to rate things if PARENTS are not willing or incapable of using the system to ASSIST in determining what their child should/can play or watch.
As a parent, am I expected to keep up on every game for the game platform(s) in my household...If there is no rating system, I have little choice but to say "No", or at least "Not yet", and go home and research the game before returning to the store to purchase it, or another instead. You should be going home and researching the game anyway. Ratings systems are not a catch-all, and they can only be used as a guide to assist a parent in making a decision. It is pretty clear that all 'R' rated movies are not equal, and what was once considered an 'R' rated film 30 years ago is more likely a PG-13 (since it didn't exist then) or maybe even PG (since the acceptability level has changed greatly in this amount of time). Also, there are people who have ignored ratings for one reason or another. I know people who took their kids to see The Passion of the Christ (poor kids) and others closer to my age who saw Schindler's List.
The same can be said for games, since all 'T' rated games are not created equal, and the line between AO and M is incredibly thin. (Because we all know I underwent some huge maturation between 17 and 18.) Remember, these are all recommendations and each kid is different in what they will be able to handle and when. Some mature better then others and can reasonably play higher rated games at an earlier age, while others should probably never play them. There is a lot to be said for maturity and mentality in these decisions. (Hint: This is where your role as a parent comes into play.)
As a parent I'm all for the rating system and fining retailers for not enforcing them. Why? They do not do this to movie theaters. (If you think they do, you are another confused individual. The policy is "enforced" by theaters and is not a legal binding.) I believe some consoles even have the console equivalent of a "V-Chip" that allows you to block based on rating. Of course, this is as effective as your TV's V-Chip. This is to say, not that much. In the end, ratings are only a guide (I sound like a broken record.), they should be neither legally binding (IN ANY WAY) or be used as the only parental determination for what to allow a child to see or play.
A new RNG is not really a selling point, the only way it will help their bottom line is if enough people know about flaws in the old one that it's profitable to replace it. Actually it can be, since it would be necessary to use a FIPS compliant PRNG to perform certain operations, they would need to have one. I suspect (see my other posts) that this is from a deprecated cryptographic service provider that MS no longer providers (DSS_BASE). If you check out the information on the CMVP website for the RNG Validation Lists, you will see they implement FIPS 186-2 PRNGs, which the paper itself admits (Appendix B) has some forward security and is not the PRNG they are attacking here.
I am willing to bet two things:
1) This does not affect current versions of Windows.
2) This only affects exported versions of Windows. (The PRNG may still be there but may not be default.)
The RC4 implementation screams of a bit-size issue. It also goes to reason since they are in a non-US country. Furthermore, I doubt this affects current versions based on the information available. If you want, go throw the CMVP RNG validation list and find the Microsoft certificates. All of the RNGs that are approved do not use RC4.
I believe there is a lot of hot-air and presumption and in the paper. They published findings and ASSUMED that nothing has been changed with relation to the PRNG. The algorithm certificates shown above clearly shows this is not the case. Furthermore, they do not state which cryptographic provider is used to perform the generation. I believe this PRNG might be from DSS_BASE, which has since been deprecated. This would mean the problem does not exist. They also ask for Microsoft's code, yet I see none of their own. Without their code, how can their paper be reasonably verified.
I say show me some more, before you cry that this is the way all PRNGs since W2K have been implemented.
We could legalize/regulate/tax the sale of pot... no, that won't happen. Probably not and a pity really. Legalize all drugs, watch crime go down. Watch number of police needed drop. Watch the cost of policing go down. Watch taxes drop. Vicious cycle and we didn't even have to tax the pot.
We could tax gasoline... that will happen It already does happen. Where do you live? States and municipalities tax Gas. Guess what, so does the US Government. So it isn't a "will happen" but "is happening".
We could tax food stuffs... that will happen Depending on your locale this currently happens. Usually it is at a lower rate then regular items, but it does happen. This said, I doubt you will ever see the fed impose taxes on food stuffs short of imposing tariffs on imports.
Seriously, a lot of stuff is already taxed. It is an ever growing list and this is some minor little thing for them to use when the debate comes up during the next presidential election.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this is the judge is taking it upon himself to decide there is no proper basis for such a penalty, when it is clearly intended as a penalty - a disincentive to terminate the contract.
Honestly, you could probably argue these fees violate anti-trust law in the US if you get the right US District Court to agree with you that these fees are less about subsidized phones and more about preventing customers from switching services. The cell phone companies have always resisted anything that made leaving them easier (phone number portability comes to mind). There are plenty of ways to make these fees more legitimate, as in the prorated fees used by the other major providers. This is less likely to draw legal complaints.
What is next? A court reviewing a software license agreement that has a large penalty clause in it? It seems that a "penalty" that is not identified as a penalty but stated to the customer as a cost recovery, a pro-rated subsidy or something else would be a problem. But every cell phone agreement I have seen says it is basically a penalty.
Yes, but the penalty has to still conform to law. Just because you put something into a contract does not make it legal. The legality of contract clauses from cell companies and software makers (since you brought them up) have been contested and in some cases defeated in court as being unfair or out right illegal.
This said, the contract is silent on the purpose of the fee; however, the cell service providers have states repeatedly it is a means to protect their subsidies of the phones. As I stated above, the court is seeing this for what it is, total bullshit. So to recap, a contract does not make that which is illegal legal and a non-prorated termination fee does not stand up well when your main argument is cell phone subsidies cost money.
1. Big planes can get lighter through the use of materials like carbon fiber.
2. Big planes are more efficient for fuel on a per passenger basis then small planes.
3. Big planes are far more comfortable then their miniature counterparts.
4. Long distance travel via car and/or motorcycle takes too long and is terribly inefficient for one (and sometimes two or three people).
747 and the big Airbus A380 are both really meant for long haul international flight. I honestly don't think I've seen many (if any) 747s that were being used strictly for cross-country. The biggest "bird" you regularly see cross the US is the 767 or the 777,
Honestly, those planes are largely reduced to carrying more cross-country flights between major hubs, while planes in the 737 range are doing mid-range travel (or all of Southwest's flying) and smaller jets (Embraer and Bombardier) are filling in the regional and short haul flights.
I think you need to rethink your little contradictory statement a bit and look at the reality of air travel.
Hate to dual reply. But the prices they list are for the UK Version to be imported by Expansys. Something engadget previously covered as $610. So, I would have to say that $399 if far more likely to be accurate based on what it is intended to compete with.
Or it could be $399
To answer your question, yes that would limit the patent greatly; however, it is important to note this was an international application and sent to many countries. Believe it or not, there are quite a few countries whose systems are more broken then the US one. So much so, it would not be impossible for this patent to have been issued there without that caveat. Quite likely that caveat was added in order to get the patent approved by combining several claims to create the one.
For the record, I am an ex-patent examiner for the USPTO.
Except for the simple fact that what is considered an obscenity or curse today, may not be considered one in the future. Heck, it even varies by locales. How many Americans would consider "bloody" to false into a "vulgar" category? What about Fag? Did I just hurt someone's feelings or did I just talk a cigarette? (Of course, how vulgar others see these words might be debatable as well.) What about archaic words, like "Humbug", which themselves were once considered vulgar; however, most people probably only know its usage from A Christmas Carol.
What are those seven-words you must hate...oh yes: Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Tits.
Listen, words are just a combination of sounds to which we have given some meaning. In the end they are just words. Speech is a complex beast and there is a lot more than what we say, but there is also how we say it. By simply acting like some words are evil based solely on some present-day view of their meaning is absurd. Heck, even some of those same words listed above are considered a lot less "vulgar" today, then they were over 30 years ago.
I don't think that vulgarity is a substitute of any type for good vocabulary, but I also think it is ignorant to assume those who might swear lack some mastery of their own language. I think there are far worse things than "foul language". Besides, which happened first, society's change to using words once considered vulgar or media's use of vulgar language? Remember, your language is always changing and evolving, whether or not the changes are for the better is debatable.
I will admit up front that this is probably going to turn into a rant, but it is bullshit comments like this and companies like yours that kept me from getting good jobs out of college. Everyone expected people to have experience (even some wanting "entry-level" people), so instead of picking candidates who were taught to think in College, they hire the schmuck who only learned his one skill and heaven forbid they should ever try to ask him to learn anything new.
I have a great ability to pick up on new items rather quickly. When I took my job as an examiner at the patent office (which I hated and therefore left), I picked up the law and the procedures very quickly. So well in fact that some of the senior examiners would ask if I'd ever dealt with patent law before. I have always been able to pick up on new ideas rather easily and learn quickly.
I had job interviews where people saw this and decided to pass on me for someone with more experience. One even told the head-hunter that if they could either a) hire two people or b) had time to train/teach me, they would have taken me. This shows that I obviously did something better then the person they did hire. It also shows that I potentially interviewed better as well.
The fact is that you probably either a) did a poor job advertising the job and set the experience bar unreasonably high (particularly compared to the salary) or b) you really managed to do what so many places that passed me over did, failed to see potential. So instead of meeting your hiring goal, you have fewer employees, who are probably overworked and probably looking to leave your employ as soon as possible.
I am grateful that one company did see the potential that I could have and have rewarded me nicely for my service thus far. If more companies followed this sort of ideology, perhaps more people like me would be employed and happy in our positions.
People have also made arguments that FPS is better on the PC (you can get higher frame rates and some prefer the mouse + keyboard combo). The same could be said for MMOs. (I think they've managed to successfully simplify most RPGs on consoles; however, an MMO where timing and networking are important still feels better on a PC. I think the number of MMOs on console vs. on PC shows the industry believes this as well.)
At the same time, there are games where simplified control allows the console to strive. I think this is why most sports titles are better sold on consoles then the PC. Platform games also feel more natural on the console. Granted, these can be made to work on PCs with the help of additional game controllers; however, this is another piece of clutter for a desk.
In the end, I think both PC and consoles have their place in the gaming world. I own a PC for gaming (mostly FPS and Lord of the Rings: Online), and I own a console (the Wii) for various game types.
Yeah, here are some reasons this law won't work:
1. This theory holds quite true. The fact of the matter is the internet is full of idiots and assholes (as is the rest of the world).
2. There was this old saying we knew as kids, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me." (Or some variation thereof.) The fact is that she reacted to words. To a person she didn't really know and never interacted with outside of myspace.
3. Someone please show me a case where someone using words or pranks to "bully" someone not online resulted in a tragedy like this occurring and the "bullier" being tried for any crime. I think you'll be hard pressed to find one that isn't a fringe example.
Now to your points:
1. I know people who are "emotional basket cases" well into their 20s. Ignoring this though, how many of those "emotional basket case" girls kill themselves when they are dumped, either in reality or virtually? One girl killing herself does not a trend make.
2. Hang out with a lot of teenagers? I could've cared less about "social standing". I know others who had this same mentality. While it might seem "cruel" and this is probably in a realm where adults should stay out of influence, what she did is not illegal and should not be illegal. Jokes, pranks, name-calling happen every day. Thousand of kids live to tell about. Only a few kill themselves and/or others.
3. This is an issue with the parents and it largely centers around the view that they are unapproachable. I have known teenagers who were willing to discuss issues with their parents, including things that were bothering them. Parents should be somewhat involved in their children's lives, including having discussions with them if they feel something is not right.
4. This relates to a parenting issue again and again is related to item #3.
If a community decides to ostracize an individual over an incident like this, then it is well within their right; however, I do believe it shows some lack of thought behind their actions. I think our society is increasingly becoming one where we find other people to blame for our troubles. This woman's actions may have had some indirect influence on the child's death; however, the child obviously had some other issues to be dealt with if the "solution" she came up with was suicide. I refuse to place all the blame on this one individual.
While this event may have ended in tragedy, I do not believe we should be legislating against this sort of behavior; especially with laws that will invariably be poorly worded and will only result in hampering discussion online. I would like to think we don't want to live in a "nanny state".
Damn, ya got me there.... My mailman is a "reasonable republican", and he has no power whatsoever, but DAMNIT it is Liberal Bias when the Media doesn't give him Equal TV Coverage.
Oh yes, because every republican in the federal politics right now is some far-right leaning, borderline fascist, neo-conservative trying to push their religious ways on the rest of us. As you've probably heard by now if you hung out around /. long enough, there is a Republican running for president and a Texas Congressman who is more Libertarian then Republican. He believes in smaller government and less spending. Oh right, he also hasn't supported Bush much, if at all. Yet, he has continually be relegated to obscurity even from the very onset of the 2008 Presidential campaigns.
Excuse me, but citing Fox News of committing Liberal Bias.... wow... just wow. Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter were made into national media personalities BY conservatives FOR conservatives. Liberals did not pick Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, liberals did not make Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter national media personalities, liberals aren't the audience giving them ratings to stay on TV. The "the media has a liberal bias" people selected and eagerly consume Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter.
Actually, I think if you read the OP post again. You will see what he is trying to say is that the mention of these people continually by the "liberal media" is more evidence of their bias. They attack these fringe individuals who have extremists views and make easy targets, while at the same time making the entirety of the "conservative media" look equally as nutty.
Who? Where? Anyone of any actual national importance and power? I guess maybe there's Ron Paul, but he lies somewhere beween Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter on the radical raving nutcase scale. And aside from him and Kucinich providing comic relief in the presidential race, he has about as much power as my mailman.
Ah yes, a brilliant method to attack anyone whose views you do not agree with, call them a "radical raving nutcase". So, does this mean everyone who supports "third parties" in the presidential campaigns should also fall into this area since they don't hold one of the two mainstream political ideologies. Oh wait, I am sorry, the singular mainstream political ideology. The two parties that we have decided to continually vote for look more and more like each other with every passing election. Republicans stopped thinking about less-spending long ago, and Democrats stopped being strictly about helping the little people and the environment long ago.
Seriously, do you think a political party led by money can have any clue what the people living in the low-income areas of Chicago, New York, or D.C. actually want/need from the government? The fact is current politics are RULED by big money. If you have the money, you can get elected. Of course, in order to do that you need to weasel your way closer and closer to the middle, which is why the parties have become so similar. To make matters worse, you have all fallen into this idea that any vote outside of these two parties is a wasted vote. If more people actually voted based on what they believe and actually used their brain some more on election day (and the rest of the year), I think this country would easily support a third or fourth party.
Because that is the the position of the majority of important influential democrat politicians, and the position of the majorty of their voter supporters.
This is not true. It is used as a gimmick to get the poor vote, but most of them want absolutely nothing to do with a national health-care program. Some of those big money democrats that I mentioned before almost assuredly get money from health insurance companies and/or big pharma. Neither have these companies have anything to gain from national health care and most everything to lose. I don't know about the rest of the world, bu
I am far more upset about the apps added to the Touch. So, they want early adopters to pay $20 for apps that are in the new Touch (which is in no other way different), when they have no increased the price of the touch, so they are not showing an apparent "cost" to the new apps. (Granted, they've probably increased the margins since the touch launched.) This is what pisses me off. Apple once again proving they like screwing their early adopters (twice in the last year now). Oh well, too bad I got all those Apps free once I "jail breaked" (or whatever term to use) my Touch.
You mean, The 6 Million Peso Man?
Yes, but you are trying to say it is expensive compared to what? A red laser pointer? I hate to burst your bubble, but green lasers are much more expensive and have a totally different set of uses, one of which (sky pointing) they could have legitimately been doing and the chopper was dumb enough to fly into the bright green beam. (Hint, on a clear night, if they were continuously shining it, that beam would be rather visible from the ground or the sky.)
This sounds as bad as those "vinyl is better" arguments you hear from people when it comes to music. I guess the difference is you can sort of show how goes from an analog to digital format with the conversion of audio can affect quality. (Whether or not you can notice it is a different debate.) Here however, there is not some mysterious change in formats that alters the content of the material being read.
This boils down to a form vs. function matter. Reading is reading, whether in a book or on an electronic device. This is how I feel. I don't care how I get my reading, so long as I get it. I have not bought an e-reader of any type. This is probably because I have not found one that I consider "perfect". In the end, I think these things could have great use for reference materials if nothing else. I would love to have had this instead of thick, heavy textbooks in college.
Finally, a book today is hardly a "craft". It is a mass printed device that came out of a machine and was slammed between a couple of pieces of cardboard and held together with glue. The "mystique" of books (if it ever really existed) died sometime during the 20th century (if not a bit sooner).
I hear this argument all the time, and know people that pirate their movies / songs / whatever and they ALWAYS tell me this same thing. But the minute it becomes impossible to get whatever through elicit means, they seems to come up with the money for it. I call bullshit right back, and the rest of your post actually helps to prove the point. Each person has some predefined cost that they are willing to pay for certain items. This varies from person to person and item to item. Now, while not everyone who is pirating will not buy something, it is stupid to assume that everyone who pirates would buy it if no other means were available. (The GP and your post both deal in the absolute of each end of the spectrum. If nothing else, I have learned that very rarely do things work in absolutes.)
Let us look at Music, since it is relatively easy to deal with. Your average CD has a price in the range of $10-$15. Before iTunes (and competition), you effectively only had two ways to get music, purchase the CD or pirate it using some "nefarious" program (Napster was one of the first widespread ones.). With the advent of free (albeit "illegal") downloads, music purchases did not stop overnight. They actually still have not stopped. People had to way the cost between the one (or two) hits on an album and downloading them for free or spending the $10-$15 for an entire album, of which only two songs would be listened. Now, if the price came down, perhaps people would pay more for it. Some would still get it for free, but there would be others who would pay the reduced cost.
Your friend is the perfect example. He purchased the "lite" version of software because he did not see the value in paying $500 for the "full" version. Your friend even complained about the cost of the software and from the sound of it regretted the purchase. Now, this screams to me of someone who didn't want to spend the money, but they were effectively required to because of whatever "need" they may have. Each and every time someone says someone won't pay for it, it means they simply don't want to pay for it and will avoid it at all costs, unless of course they can't and in which case, they will pay for it. This is not necessarily true. There are a few things I won't pay for. I have managed to stay out of a movie theater for over two years, and it looks like that will probably reach at least three years before it is broken. I won't ever spend money at a gas station for air. (Seriously, why should I pay for air, just because they have a compressor, and usually a crappy one at that.) I won't pay for bottled water (nor will I pay for any water at a restaurant and some have tried.). These might seem trivial but they are true. The other thing I won't do is pay for MS Windows separate from my PC. I have a single retail version I got for free from an MS rep in college, and two OEM licenses with my two Dell purchased PCs, but I will NEVER buy it to install on a system. (Of course, I run Linux in either single or dual boot configs on all my machines.)
These both happened near the same time and almost cost me tons of data:
1. Lost one of my 200 GB drives in my RAID0 (or as I like to call it AID) array. Nothing like trying to scrape off the data before the catastrophic failure of the disk. Luckily the loss was minimized.
2. My 60 GB laptop HDD failed during the same time period. I think I managed to get some of the data off before the drive went dead, but its not like I had many places to put it.
I know they are both pretty mundane, since they were both random drive failures. Since then, I install separate OS disks and data disks. This way failure of one doesn't been the death of the other, and I still have a place to restore data too before those awful noises stops with the death of my drive.
I find it interesting the woman who "washed away" her data. My generic (MicroCenter bulk) USB flash drive has gone through the washer three times and the dryer twice. Not lost any data, and I am actually using it now.
The same can be said for games, since all 'T' rated games are not created equal, and the line between AO and M is incredibly thin. (Because we all know I underwent some huge maturation between 17 and 18.) Remember, these are all recommendations and each kid is different in what they will be able to handle and when. Some mature better then others and can reasonably play higher rated games at an earlier age, while others should probably never play them. There is a lot to be said for maturity and mentality in these decisions. (Hint: This is where your role as a parent comes into play.) As a parent I'm all for the rating system and fining retailers for not enforcing them. Why? They do not do this to movie theaters. (If you think they do, you are another confused individual. The policy is "enforced" by theaters and is not a legal binding.) I believe some consoles even have the console equivalent of a "V-Chip" that allows you to block based on rating. Of course, this is as effective as your TV's V-Chip. This is to say, not that much. In the end, ratings are only a guide (I sound like a broken record.), they should be neither legally binding (IN ANY WAY) or be used as the only parental determination for what to allow a child to see or play.
I am willing to bet two things:
1) This does not affect current versions of Windows.
2) This only affects exported versions of Windows. (The PRNG may still be there but may not be default.)
The RC4 implementation screams of a bit-size issue. It also goes to reason since they are in a non-US country. Furthermore, I doubt this affects current versions based on the information available. If you want, go throw the CMVP RNG validation list and find the Microsoft certificates. All of the RNGs that are approved do not use RC4.
I believe there is a lot of hot-air and presumption and in the paper. They published findings and ASSUMED that nothing has been changed with relation to the PRNG. The algorithm certificates shown above clearly shows this is not the case. Furthermore, they do not state which cryptographic provider is used to perform the generation. I believe this PRNG might be from DSS_BASE, which has since been deprecated. This would mean the problem does not exist. They also ask for Microsoft's code, yet I see none of their own. Without their code, how can their paper be reasonably verified.
I say show me some more, before you cry that this is the way all PRNGs since W2K have been implemented.
Seriously, a lot of stuff is already taxed. It is an ever growing list and this is some minor little thing for them to use when the debate comes up during the next presidential election.