What's bad is that I have seen people who, when I say, "Go to Google," actually go to Google, type in "google" in the search bar, and click the first link to get to it.
But they don't. Therefore, everything else in your post, while arguably mildly interesting, is completely irrelevant. There is no legal difference between being innocent and being not guilty.
As for the OJ case, you're confusing "not guilty" with "not responsible." OJ was found criminally not guilty--"innocent," if you prefer--but still civilly responsible for the deaths of the victims. This was an extremely rare aberration, and let's not kid ourselves, it was a way of punishing him in civil court when everyone thought he was guilty as sin even though a criminal jury found him not. (Not that I'm disagreeing, but such is the risk you run with trials by jury. Sometimes people will get away with it.)
In the US courts of law you never have to prove innocence. It's the default starting position. Unless proven otherwise, that's what the defendant is. If the prosecution fails to prove you guilty, that's what you are.
If you are not convicted of a crime in the court of law, you are innocent. Period.
This is factually correct, no "Um, no" about it. If you're not being tried for anything, no one describes you as "not guilty." If you've been tried and acquitted, you're just as innocent as someone who hasn't been tried. There's no middle-of-the-road legal status that applies to people who have been acquitted versus those who have never been prosecuted. Both sets of people are simply legally innocent, as the GP said, period.
That's BS. It's the exact same functionality with the exact same name and damn near the exact same logo. If it were one or two of those things, I might be willing to chalk it up to coincidence or obviousness. But the whole trifecta? After Apple engineers have had exclusive access to his app and acknowledged that they were impressed by it? And after it's been highly visible on Cydia? (If you don't think Apple engineers are looking at Cydia apps, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...) To pretend like it's all just some big coinkidink?
No sir, I don't buy it, not for a damn minute. I think they were impressed with his app so much that they decided to add it to their own feature list to be implemented, turn it down to deny him money and reputation he should have been earning, saw it doing well on Cydia, and pushed it out as an "upgrade" so that everyone will be zealously adoring of how smart they are for something they should have had working from day one and that someone else smarter than them figured out before they could.
This was blatant abuse of their power as gatekeeper of the one and only official app store. It's disgusting, and while I'm usually not a fan of IP lawsuits, I hope this guy wins a million or three in damages for what Apple denied to him. He has provable damages and has them dead to rights for wholesale stealing his work. In the US, this would be an obvious violation of copyright and probably trademark too. Hopefully in the UK they have similar enough laws that it would be there, too.
And what the hell difference does it make if they asked him for his résumé? Did they offer him a job? Apparently not. If anything, that sounds patronizing to me, kind of like, "Let's dote some praise on the guy whose work we're going to steal. Maybe he'll just stupidly go away and not bother us."
And yeah, it pisses me off even more that these are the same bastards that go after people who have the unmitigated gall to call something iWhatever or offer to sell apps in a--gasp!--app store!
I know it's popular to portray Microsoft as the Evil Empire, but this totally sucks. While you all are laughing at the irony, keep in mind that this is only going to convince big companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, Cisco, etc. that they need to hunker down even more in developing extensive patent portfolios and vigorously defending them. It's the only way to survive as a business these days, to have enough goods to establish a mutually assured destruction scenario if someone sues you. Unfortunately, it also looks like patent trolls are going to be encouraged from now on. As a society, we've completely missed the narrow window of opportunity we had to change the system to prevent this kind of abuse. I guess we were too busy watching Snooki, American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, I hope it was worth it.
This system is so hideously broken, so apparently messed up with no will or way to change it, that it sometimes makes me want to get out of the IT industry altogether.
...they already just let one of its commissioners take a blatant bribe from Comcast under the condition that they give them the ok to merge with NBC Universal.
Citation, please? Not just to keep you honest, but because I don't remember this and I want to know more.
Actually, when I read the article, it seemed to go pretty far beyond that. It's more like patenting every motion one could possibly make while using a saw, even if you never intend to use such motions. That way, for practical purposes, you can't invent and sell another saw, even one that uses a crappy circular motion, because we own that too.
All of these patents should be invalidated immediately, but then, most patents applied for these days should never even be granted to begin with.
So what do you think the article is about? Because when I read the article, I thought to myself that this isn't like patenting, say, a saw. No, it's like patenting moving a saw from side to side in a sawing motion. Sure, if you're a competitor, you can invent and sell another saw, but you can't invent one that works by allowing the user to cut by moving that saw side to side in a sawing motion, because we own that. And unless I'm mistaken, that's pretty much what the GP was referring to.
As fun as slandering people is, two notes should probably be kept in mind. First, the vast majority of the book is about research told to her by multiple sourced first-hand accounts of what was going on at Area 51. As in, non-conspirational yet still interesting stuff. Second, as a commenter above noted, this is not Annie Jacobsen's crazy theory on what was happening. She took special pains to point out that this was a story directly recounted to her from someone who was supposedly directly involved, unfiltered by her bias. In fact, if I recall correctly, she actually says at some point that she thinks the whole story is highly unlikely.
Unfortunately, the media loves a good sensationalist story, so out of the whole book, this is the one extremely minor thing picked out of it to publicize, and people are trying to cast Annie Jacobsen in the light of the crackpot theorist.
How about actually finding out more about her and the book next time before you go maligning people like this? Oh, right. Because the media isn't the only one who loves a good sensationalist story.
NDAs are a little different, at least in my mind. An NDA only gags free speech in so much as it can cause direct harm to a company. If I develop some super secret process that allowed me to turn rainbows into gold, and in the process of me contracting you to help with a part of it, you blabbed to the world how it's done, that would cause me direct financial harm.
It's my understanding that you cannot order someone under an NDA (at least, it's not enforceable) to not talk about things that either 1) would be covered as protected speech or 2) wouldn't pretty specifically be related to the information for which the NDA was signed. For example, an NDA saying that you couldn't express an opinion about a political party should be unenforceable. Also, if I am, for example, manufacturing computer equipment, I would think that an NDA keeping you from talking about what flavor gum is your favorite would be rather unenforceable. But then, IANAL, so YMMV.
As for coercion, Timothy Lee made an awesome point. When you go to a doctor's office, you are likely in need of medical help. I agree with him that this puts this "contract" in a particularly bad light. It's easy to imagine someone in a spot in which they feel like they have to sign the contract in order to prevent damage to one's health, possibly even life.
Personally, I'd be for legislation that makes such contracts explicitly illegal.
I honestly fail to see how your blurb about communism and socialism really applies to this particular instance of the MAFIAA being the MAFIAA.
...And that's kind of sad. The point is that we have handed so much power over to the corporatocracy that rules this country and, to some extent, the world today, that the MAFIAA is pretty much untouchable.
I can say that it boggles my mind how there can be people around who praise communism and socialism (which have never really worked right anywhere anyway) and denounce freedom. The lot of you that does is just so emotionally attached to these ideas, rather than using any kind of common sense, if you ask me. You know communism doesn't actually _work_, right?
...And that's the problem; you're proving my point. People like you look at any regulation as Communism/Socialism.
There is absolutely nothing Communist or Socialist about the idea of regulating corporations. Many of our founding fathers were terrified of the idea of a "monied aristocracy" taking over this country, and damned if we didn't let them. I absolutely believe in free market and capitalism, but I also have the good sense to realize that there has to be limitations on them, that their power has to be tempered by their social obligation and the public good.
Instead, we have these idiotic "Tea Partiers" who think they're fighting for freedom from government tyranny. The irony is that they probably have no frickin' clue why the Boston Tea Party actually took place. Yes, it was an act of rebellion against the British colonial government, but it was specifically a rebellion against the government being a puppet of the East Indian Company--the government establishing a company as a monopoly, acting only in its interests, collecting money on its behalf, and being used as a tool to force its business model into profitability, directly against the best interests of colonial citizens.
If these people were real Tea Partiers, they would be out there demanding that our government stop being used as a corporate tool by organizations like the MAFIAA, and they would take grave offense at the notion of sensible regulation being "Socialist."
The problem is that when you plunk out your money to buy the shiny new, it is not a sale. Legally, you're buying a "license" to use the game, which gives game companies the ability to dictate and/or change the terms of those license at their will.
It's not really SCOTUS that needs to address it, it's Congress. We need a law that basically says, "If it looks like a sale, acts like a sale, works like a sale, then it's a sale." Software shouldn't be able to be licensed except in very specific circumstances, none of which apply to individual end users purchasing entertainment software.
If SCOTUS did take up the issue, they need to basically rule most EULAs unconscionable.
At any rate, I doubt any of that will happen any time soon. People are too addicted to that hot new Xbox/PS3/PC game to worry about little details like consumer rights.
Same damn reason corporations in general are running everything. In the past few decades, "capitalism" and "free market" has been twisted by those with lots of money and a vested interest in having as much power as possible to mean unbridled, unregulated, free reign to do anything they want. When someone tries to inject some common sense into the conversation, they get called Communists (the Cold War buzzword) and/or Socialists (its modern bogeyman equivalent), the FTC, FCC, and other organizations tasked with looking out for us get emasculated and de-funded, a bunch of flag waving and chants of "freedom!" happen, and people vote and act against their own self-interest. All the while, those very rich people get to pay 15% capital gains tax on most of their income while the rest of us pay way more, and those corporations that are screwing us over pay little or no tax in the name of "creating jobs" all the while planning how to more efficiently cut our salaries and benefits and ship our jobs overseas.
Other than posting meaningless messages on Slashdot, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to cancel your cable subscription and stop watching big content? Are you going to stop listening to everyone except independent artists? Are you going to stop going to/renting movies? Are you going to support and campaign for people who have strong consumer rights stances? Are you going to tell your family and friends, even when it's a bit awkward because they're the very "freedom!" chanters you're fighting, why they have to buy movies four times to watch them on four devices? Are you going to write to your Congresscritters and your local media, set up a blog, and otherwise try to get the word out? Are you going to donate time and money to organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation? Are you going to stop buying iPods, Blu-ray players, PS3s, Amazon Prime memberships, and Netflix subscriptions?
Yeah, that's what I thought. That is why the bullies get to keep pushing us around.
There have been reports of anti-lock brake systems failing when near powerful transmitters, sensor malfunctions leading to brakes seizing or the engine cutting out (leading to a loss of power steering), acceleration controls becoming locked, etc.
Guys, if the modern car can't even talk to itself without going beserk, why are we considering networking them?
The goal isn't 100% accuracy; the goal is better-than-human accuracy. Personally, I've never heard of these sensor malfunctions to which you're referring. Still, even conceding that it's happened here and there, I can guaran-damn-tee you that the benefits of anti-lock brake systems have far outweighed any such problems, saving dozens of thousands of lives. I've been in a crash because I didn't have ABS, and I've avoided one or two since specifically because I did have ABS. I'll more than willingly take the minuscule risk that something bizarre might happen to the ABS system any day.
As for talking cars, is there a mathematically zero chance that someone won't go wrong? No, but I'd sure as hell trust my car reacting automagically to things a thousand yards up ahead that I can't possibly know about more than I'd trust my own eyes and ears with their limited range. Actually, more relevantly, I'd much sooner trust a car reacting automagically to things a thousand yards up ahead than I'd trust the eyes, ears, sobriety, and attention span of the drivers around me.
I know this is may be kind of a weird concept, but not all of us have all of the nuances and documentation of the languages in which we work memorized. When I'm developing anything, I always have at least one window open with my IDE/editor, at least one window open (many times multiple windows open) with documentation--a window to which I refer to with such frequency that it would seriously hamper my efforts to have to click or alt-tab around to find it, at least one browser window open with Google and/or its search results, and most of the time, a window open with the project on which I'm working, and sometimes a debugging window as well.
The more code I can see at one time, the more productive I am, period. The more documentation I can see, the more productive I am, period. As for the project, it depends.
So yeah, I do think it's needed. Without dual monitors, every time I alt-tab, it costs around five seconds or so of down time while I try to get my bearings. It may not sound like much, but it happens literally hundreds of times during a coding session.
...Except that Comcast is a goverment-established monopoly in many areas. Don't believe me? Try to get a fast upstream connection and set up your own networks for people to connect to. You will either be 1) immediately shut down by the government or 2) sued out of existence by the major network providers.
This just emphasizes YET AGAIN the importance of net neutrality laws. We absolutely, positively MUST force network providers to be just that--dumb pipes--and nothing more*.
*Unless you specifically ask them not to be; for example, I wouldn't be opposed to Comcast providing a premium "parent-friendly" tier of service where they agree to block sites for you if you want, or a "custom priority" tier where you can set up QoS settings to make sure traffic you deem important gets through, that kind of thing. Though I wouldn't subscribe to such services, it should be well within their rights to offer.
Here is the info about the USB incident I mentioned above. It wasn't a virus, it was another root kit-like software being distributed with MicroVault fingerprint scanner software.
Slashdot Mirror
What's bad is that I have seen people who, when I say, "Go to Google," actually go to Google, type in "google" in the search bar, and click the first link to get to it.
If courts in the US declared innocence...
But they don't. Therefore, everything else in your post, while arguably mildly interesting, is completely irrelevant. There is no legal difference between being innocent and being not guilty.
As for the OJ case, you're confusing "not guilty" with "not responsible." OJ was found criminally not guilty--"innocent," if you prefer--but still civilly responsible for the deaths of the victims. This was an extremely rare aberration, and let's not kid ourselves, it was a way of punishing him in civil court when everyone thought he was guilty as sin even though a criminal jury found him not. (Not that I'm disagreeing, but such is the risk you run with trials by jury. Sometimes people will get away with it.)
Then perhaps you can explain to me what you think the legal difference is between "not guilty" and "innocent"?
In the US courts of law you never have to prove innocence. It's the default starting position. Unless proven otherwise, that's what the defendant is. If the prosecution fails to prove you guilty, that's what you are.
This is factually correct, no "Um, no" about it. If you're not being tried for anything, no one describes you as "not guilty." If you've been tried and acquitted, you're just as innocent as someone who hasn't been tried. There's no middle-of-the-road legal status that applies to people who have been acquitted versus those who have never been prosecuted. Both sets of people are simply legally innocent, as the GP said, period.
That's BS. It's the exact same functionality with the exact same name and damn near the exact same logo. If it were one or two of those things, I might be willing to chalk it up to coincidence or obviousness. But the whole trifecta? After Apple engineers have had exclusive access to his app and acknowledged that they were impressed by it? And after it's been highly visible on Cydia? (If you don't think Apple engineers are looking at Cydia apps, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...) To pretend like it's all just some big coinkidink?
No sir, I don't buy it, not for a damn minute. I think they were impressed with his app so much that they decided to add it to their own feature list to be implemented, turn it down to deny him money and reputation he should have been earning, saw it doing well on Cydia, and pushed it out as an "upgrade" so that everyone will be zealously adoring of how smart they are for something they should have had working from day one and that someone else smarter than them figured out before they could.
This was blatant abuse of their power as gatekeeper of the one and only official app store. It's disgusting, and while I'm usually not a fan of IP lawsuits, I hope this guy wins a million or three in damages for what Apple denied to him. He has provable damages and has them dead to rights for wholesale stealing his work. In the US, this would be an obvious violation of copyright and probably trademark too. Hopefully in the UK they have similar enough laws that it would be there, too.
And what the hell difference does it make if they asked him for his résumé? Did they offer him a job? Apparently not. If anything, that sounds patronizing to me, kind of like, "Let's dote some praise on the guy whose work we're going to steal. Maybe he'll just stupidly go away and not bother us."
And yeah, it pisses me off even more that these are the same bastards that go after people who have the unmitigated gall to call something iWhatever or offer to sell apps in a--gasp!--app store!
I know it's popular to portray Microsoft as the Evil Empire, but this totally sucks. While you all are laughing at the irony, keep in mind that this is only going to convince big companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, Cisco, etc. that they need to hunker down even more in developing extensive patent portfolios and vigorously defending them. It's the only way to survive as a business these days, to have enough goods to establish a mutually assured destruction scenario if someone sues you. Unfortunately, it also looks like patent trolls are going to be encouraged from now on. As a society, we've completely missed the narrow window of opportunity we had to change the system to prevent this kind of abuse. I guess we were too busy watching Snooki, American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, I hope it was worth it.
This system is so hideously broken, so apparently messed up with no will or way to change it, that it sometimes makes me want to get out of the IT industry altogether.
Well, there you go. Thanks!
...they already just let one of its commissioners take a blatant bribe from Comcast under the condition that they give them the ok to merge with NBC Universal.
Citation, please? Not just to keep you honest, but because I don't remember this and I want to know more.
Actually, when I read the article, it seemed to go pretty far beyond that. It's more like patenting every motion one could possibly make while using a saw, even if you never intend to use such motions. That way, for practical purposes, you can't invent and sell another saw, even one that uses a crappy circular motion, because we own that too.
All of these patents should be invalidated immediately, but then, most patents applied for these days should never even be granted to begin with.
So what do you think the article is about? Because when I read the article, I thought to myself that this isn't like patenting, say, a saw. No, it's like patenting moving a saw from side to side in a sawing motion. Sure, if you're a competitor, you can invent and sell another saw, but you can't invent one that works by allowing the user to cut by moving that saw side to side in a sawing motion, because we own that. And unless I'm mistaken, that's pretty much what the GP was referring to.
As fun as slandering people is, two notes should probably be kept in mind. First, the vast majority of the book is about research told to her by multiple sourced first-hand accounts of what was going on at Area 51. As in, non-conspirational yet still interesting stuff. Second, as a commenter above noted, this is not Annie Jacobsen's crazy theory on what was happening. She took special pains to point out that this was a story directly recounted to her from someone who was supposedly directly involved, unfiltered by her bias. In fact, if I recall correctly, she actually says at some point that she thinks the whole story is highly unlikely.
Unfortunately, the media loves a good sensationalist story, so out of the whole book, this is the one extremely minor thing picked out of it to publicize, and people are trying to cast Annie Jacobsen in the light of the crackpot theorist.
How about actually finding out more about her and the book next time before you go maligning people like this? Oh, right. Because the media isn't the only one who loves a good sensationalist story.
In case it didn't come off as so, that was a joke, by the way. It's probably not obvious, but I agree with you.
80 years? Pfff...
The ancient Egyptians knew they were there thousands of years ago, they must be smarter than you and Dr. Parcak put together.
NDAs are a little different, at least in my mind. An NDA only gags free speech in so much as it can cause direct harm to a company. If I develop some super secret process that allowed me to turn rainbows into gold, and in the process of me contracting you to help with a part of it, you blabbed to the world how it's done, that would cause me direct financial harm.
It's my understanding that you cannot order someone under an NDA (at least, it's not enforceable) to not talk about things that either 1) would be covered as protected speech or 2) wouldn't pretty specifically be related to the information for which the NDA was signed. For example, an NDA saying that you couldn't express an opinion about a political party should be unenforceable. Also, if I am, for example, manufacturing computer equipment, I would think that an NDA keeping you from talking about what flavor gum is your favorite would be rather unenforceable. But then, IANAL, so YMMV.
As for coercion, Timothy Lee made an awesome point. When you go to a doctor's office, you are likely in need of medical help. I agree with him that this puts this "contract" in a particularly bad light. It's easy to imagine someone in a spot in which they feel like they have to sign the contract in order to prevent damage to one's health, possibly even life.
Personally, I'd be for legislation that makes such contracts explicitly illegal.
I honestly fail to see how your blurb about communism and socialism really applies to this particular instance of the MAFIAA being the MAFIAA.
...And that's kind of sad. The point is that we have handed so much power over to the corporatocracy that rules this country and, to some extent, the world today, that the MAFIAA is pretty much untouchable.
I can say that it boggles my mind how there can be people around who praise communism and socialism (which have never really worked right anywhere anyway) and denounce freedom. The lot of you that does is just so emotionally attached to these ideas, rather than using any kind of common sense, if you ask me. You know communism doesn't actually _work_, right?
...And that's the problem; you're proving my point. People like you look at any regulation as Communism/Socialism.
There is absolutely nothing Communist or Socialist about the idea of regulating corporations. Many of our founding fathers were terrified of the idea of a "monied aristocracy" taking over this country, and damned if we didn't let them. I absolutely believe in free market and capitalism, but I also have the good sense to realize that there has to be limitations on them, that their power has to be tempered by their social obligation and the public good.
Instead, we have these idiotic "Tea Partiers" who think they're fighting for freedom from government tyranny. The irony is that they probably have no frickin' clue why the Boston Tea Party actually took place. Yes, it was an act of rebellion against the British colonial government, but it was specifically a rebellion against the government being a puppet of the East Indian Company--the government establishing a company as a monopoly, acting only in its interests, collecting money on its behalf, and being used as a tool to force its business model into profitability, directly against the best interests of colonial citizens.
If these people were real Tea Partiers, they would be out there demanding that our government stop being used as a corporate tool by organizations like the MAFIAA, and they would take grave offense at the notion of sensible regulation being "Socialist."
Then welcome to the right side, and thanks for being part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
The problem is that when you plunk out your money to buy the shiny new, it is not a sale. Legally, you're buying a "license" to use the game, which gives game companies the ability to dictate and/or change the terms of those license at their will.
It's not really SCOTUS that needs to address it, it's Congress. We need a law that basically says, "If it looks like a sale, acts like a sale, works like a sale, then it's a sale." Software shouldn't be able to be licensed except in very specific circumstances, none of which apply to individual end users purchasing entertainment software.
If SCOTUS did take up the issue, they need to basically rule most EULAs unconscionable.
At any rate, I doubt any of that will happen any time soon. People are too addicted to that hot new Xbox/PS3/PC game to worry about little details like consumer rights.
Same damn reason corporations in general are running everything. In the past few decades, "capitalism" and "free market" has been twisted by those with lots of money and a vested interest in having as much power as possible to mean unbridled, unregulated, free reign to do anything they want. When someone tries to inject some common sense into the conversation, they get called Communists (the Cold War buzzword) and/or Socialists (its modern bogeyman equivalent), the FTC, FCC, and other organizations tasked with looking out for us get emasculated and de-funded, a bunch of flag waving and chants of "freedom!" happen, and people vote and act against their own self-interest. All the while, those very rich people get to pay 15% capital gains tax on most of their income while the rest of us pay way more, and those corporations that are screwing us over pay little or no tax in the name of "creating jobs" all the while planning how to more efficiently cut our salaries and benefits and ship our jobs overseas.
Other than posting meaningless messages on Slashdot, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to cancel your cable subscription and stop watching big content? Are you going to stop listening to everyone except independent artists? Are you going to stop going to/renting movies? Are you going to support and campaign for people who have strong consumer rights stances? Are you going to tell your family and friends, even when it's a bit awkward because they're the very "freedom!" chanters you're fighting, why they have to buy movies four times to watch them on four devices? Are you going to write to your Congresscritters and your local media, set up a blog, and otherwise try to get the word out? Are you going to donate time and money to organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation? Are you going to stop buying iPods, Blu-ray players, PS3s, Amazon Prime memberships, and Netflix subscriptions?
Yeah, that's what I thought. That is why the bullies get to keep pushing us around.
...how about law enforcement (read: anyone with the right equipment) can remote kill or stop your vehicle?
Frankly, the engineering just isn't there yet.
By the way, this technology not only exists, but it is being advertised and sold as a feature.
There have been reports of anti-lock brake systems failing when near powerful transmitters, sensor malfunctions leading to brakes seizing or the engine cutting out (leading to a loss of power steering), acceleration controls becoming locked, etc.
Guys, if the modern car can't even talk to itself without going beserk, why are we considering networking them?
The goal isn't 100% accuracy; the goal is better-than-human accuracy. Personally, I've never heard of these sensor malfunctions to which you're referring. Still, even conceding that it's happened here and there, I can guaran-damn-tee you that the benefits of anti-lock brake systems have far outweighed any such problems, saving dozens of thousands of lives. I've been in a crash because I didn't have ABS, and I've avoided one or two since specifically because I did have ABS. I'll more than willingly take the minuscule risk that something bizarre might happen to the ABS system any day.
As for talking cars, is there a mathematically zero chance that someone won't go wrong? No, but I'd sure as hell trust my car reacting automagically to things a thousand yards up ahead that I can't possibly know about more than I'd trust my own eyes and ears with their limited range. Actually, more relevantly, I'd much sooner trust a car reacting automagically to things a thousand yards up ahead than I'd trust the eyes, ears, sobriety, and attention span of the drivers around me.
I know this is may be kind of a weird concept, but not all of us have all of the nuances and documentation of the languages in which we work memorized. When I'm developing anything, I always have at least one window open with my IDE/editor, at least one window open (many times multiple windows open) with documentation--a window to which I refer to with such frequency that it would seriously hamper my efforts to have to click or alt-tab around to find it, at least one browser window open with Google and/or its search results, and most of the time, a window open with the project on which I'm working, and sometimes a debugging window as well.
The more code I can see at one time, the more productive I am, period. The more documentation I can see, the more productive I am, period. As for the project, it depends.
So yeah, I do think it's needed. Without dual monitors, every time I alt-tab, it costs around five seconds or so of down time while I try to get my bearings. It may not sound like much, but it happens literally hundreds of times during a coding session.
...Except that Comcast is a goverment-established monopoly in many areas. Don't believe me? Try to get a fast upstream connection and set up your own networks for people to connect to. You will either be 1) immediately shut down by the government or 2) sued out of existence by the major network providers.
This just emphasizes YET AGAIN the importance of net neutrality laws. We absolutely, positively MUST force network providers to be just that--dumb pipes--and nothing more*.
*Unless you specifically ask them not to be; for example, I wouldn't be opposed to Comcast providing a premium "parent-friendly" tier of service where they agree to block sites for you if you want, or a "custom priority" tier where you can set up QoS settings to make sure traffic you deem important gets through, that kind of thing. Though I wouldn't subscribe to such services, it should be well within their rights to offer.
They have another server that checks the first server's translation. Part of their work is checking that server's affectiveness, too.
A flamewar? Am I blindly missing the dissenting opinions? Is anyone here arguing that he was a nice guy and we should have just let him go?
Here is the info about the USB incident I mentioned above. It wasn't a virus, it was another root kit-like software being distributed with MicroVault fingerprint scanner software.