Apple's patent has tons of prior art. Your passive aggressive attempt to defend Apple merely shows you what a fanboi you truly are.
Yeah, it's got tons of prior art, but so the hell what? Until Google pays its pound of flesh in money and time to have it invalidated, that doesn't make a rat's ass worth of difference. That's not fanboyism, that's just the way the system works.
Apple is a company. As a company, it is going to do whatever it can legally do to thwart its competition. If that means obtaining a patent that will at some point later be ruled invalid and then using it to temporarily take your competitor's products off the market, or better yet, get them to disable certain feature of it, that conveys a certain impression to a lot of your competitor's existing and would-be customers: that 1) your competitor cannot be relied upon to deliver said features, and 2) that your competitor is basically creating knock-offs of your superior product.
There is a really damn good chance that this patent will be invalidated at some point--I'm hoping it during this trial. But the damage is done, and even though the patent isn't valid, Apple will have won a marketing battle from it.
The GP is exactly right on the money: The problem is with the system. Blame Apple all you want for not acting in an ethical manner, but if you think it's acceptable to have a system in place that depends on companies acting ethically, boy are you in the wrong country.
Even if Apple goes out of business tomorrow (fat chance...), the GP is also right that there will always be another company right behind them using the same practices to thwart its competition and get ahead. Even if somehow the plug was pulled on Apple doing this, what are you going to do about the 158 companies lined up right behind Apple to extract their pound of flesh from Google? Try to squash them too? Good luck with that.
In the meantime, sane, rational people like the GP understand that the only way to solve this problem once and for all is to change the system so that it doesn't depend on companies being ethical. Take away their weapons, software patents, and we won't have to worry about Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, or anyone else using the shitty system like this any more, and companies like Google (and yes, Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, etc.) can focus more of their time, energy, and money on producing cool products instead of fighting these incessant court battles.
I'll reply to this since you seem to not be one of the mindless idiots who just spout off Republican talking points.
But at the same time, these accomplishments are being questioned by nearly half of the American people, according to most polls.
It's important to denote exactly what is being questioned. What specifically are people objecting to? If you ask the average schmo on the street who professes to not like Obama's policies, they'll spit back some vague, general notion like, "expansion of government," or, "increasing taxes," and the like. But when you question people about the actual specifics of what Democrats have accomplished in the past four years, people start changing their tune.
The health care law is an excellent example. You're right, a lot of people do indeed oppose "Obamacare." But what exactly do they oppose? Preventing policy recision by insurance companies? No, they overwhelmingly support that. Requiring that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions? No, they overwhelming support that. The ability of parents to keep their kids covered on their insurance plan until age 26? No, they support that. Closing the Medicare "doughnut hole"? No, they overwhelmingly support that. Public exchanges where people who can't get insured elsewhere can get affordable coverage? No, they support that.
The Republicans are in an awful tight squeeze here. If they oppose the details of Obamacare, they know they'll get crucified. There's only one aspect of the law that there's significant opposition to by the American electorate: the individual mandate. But here's the rub: The individual mandate is a Republican idea, not a Democratic one. It was invented by Republicans, sponsored by Republicans, and passed by a Republican governor of Massachusetts--Mitt Romney.
"But if it's a Republican idea, why was it passed by a Democratic Congress and president?" That's a good question, and you have to remember the history of the health care debate to understand the answer.
Originally, Democrats didn't want an individual mandate, they wanted a single-payer system. Remember when Bill Clinton was President and he and Hillary were trying to get the national health care card passed but it fell flat on its face? Democrats didn't want a repeat of that, so they compromised with what they dubbed the "public option." The notion was that everyone who didn't have insurance would be provided, either for free or for discounted rates, a government-sponsored health care plan. To keep everyone from flocking to this option, though, employers would be required to provide insurance coverage unless they met certain small-business qualifications to be exempt. It was intended to be the insurer of last resort, but it was also intended to ensure universal coverage for everyone.
To understand why that didn't pass, you have to also understand the political climate at the time. Obama had just won election against John McCain, and Republicans were absolutely furious. They resolved that their number one priority was to get him out of office. This isn't speculation or left-wing conspiracy theory, they openly admitted it. Mitch McConnell, Republican Senate minority leader, has said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Jeff Sessions, Republican senator from Alabama, pledge to block every single Obama appointee. The political climate of Washington was poisonous.
However, one of Obama's campaign promises was to work with Republicans, to integrate some of their ideas into policy and legislation that he would support. Remember, the Democrats had a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate as well as the White House. They could have steamrolled any damn legislation they wanted down Republicans' throats, and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it. But they didn't want to do that--for one thing, they would have come off as total
The 24 is to differentiate it from 8 hours in a standard business day, the 7 is to differentiate it from 5 days per week, a normal business-type week, and the 365 is to emphasize that whatever is being talked about applies to holidays that most people take off. The x is short for "by", not the "times" operator. In short, it is simply an idiomatic expression to mean something happening continuously, with no night, weekend, or holiday breaks.
No, but it is possible to go from +5, Insightful to -1, Troll in the span of about an hour. Not that I care so much, but methinks that some angry Republican out there has a bunch of sockpuppet accounts set up to get multiple mod points.
You're wrong in a very fundamental way. Obama most certainly is proud of his accomplishments, as are most Democrats who voted for him. Among other things, he's dramatically changed the health care landscape for the better, he's helped to radically shift society's perception of homosexuality, and militarily he's kicked ass, accomplishing the destruction of the most hated person on earth since Adolph Hitler. Am I in love with everything the guy's done? No, but on the whole, I am extremely proud to proclaim that I supported him in 2008, and I am happily doing so again this year.
You seem to be buying Republican attempts to make him out as ineffectual. I know it's pretty difficult with right wing politicians, Fox News and a whole bunch of talking heads on the radio constantly spewing out lies and misrepresentations about his record and corporations who want the unfettered ability to run roughshod over our freedoms spending hundreds of millions, possibly even billions of dollars on 24x7x365 slick well-planned marketing campaigns designed to get the poor and middle class to vote against their own self-interest. It's clearly a case of the old adage of telling a lie enough until even the person telling it believes it's true.
But make no mistake, I am not supporting him because of any kind of "I'm not GWB" campaign. The fact is that he inherited a hell of a mess caused by eight years of bad policy, and he's done an amazing job turning things around. Most Democrats knew this well enough in 2009 that they really haven't needed to constantly remind everyone except when Republicans keep trotting out things like the massive job losses that the U.S. sustained in Obama's first year when we were still operating under Bush's economy. If Republicans would stop pitching these losses as Obama's fault before he even had a chance to enact any policies, we would stop reminding everyone why those numbers were so bad.
But yeah, it's most certainly not more of the same. Ask anyone who is getting mortgage relief now. Ask any gay member of the military. Ask anyone who had their insurance policy canceled during the Bush years because they had an incurable condition. Ask the brave members of SEAL Team Six. Ask any young immigrant who is here through no decision of their own but, until a couple of weeks ago, faced the threat of deportation to a country they've never known. Anyone who thinks that the past four years have been more of the same is either lying, stupid, or grossly not paying attention.
We still have HOPE and we've seen CHANGE. Backtracking on that now would be one of the dumbest things the American electorate could ever do.
Really? Google's going "out of their way"? I checked the Nexus Q web site, and funny enough, I don't see any stars and stripes plastered on it. There's a notation on the Q itself, but it's inset on the back of the unit without any kind of painted letters or anything; even less obvious than the "Made in China" stickers I see plastered on most other things I buy.
As far as I can tell, the "Made in the USA" thing originated from a tech reporter asking someone who worked on the project why it's more expensive than similar devices. From there, a lot of people made a big deal out of it. While I'm sure that Google doesn't mind the publicity, I think that saying that they're going "out of their way to loudly proclaim that" is a bit of an overstatement.
Well, what do you expect? The USA has outsourced just about all of its high-tech manufacturing overseas. There are a lot of parts that Google probably can't even get domestically. I think the point is that they're making more of the thing in the USA than most electronic gizmos. If they're successful and there's a lot of demand for the Nexus Q, and more importantly, if other companies follow suit and the demand for electronics supply to be close-at-hand increases, then you'll see a ripple effect for more things like chips being manufactured in the USA.
You should--and probably do--know that there's a huge difference between, "You have to jailbreak your device for this to work," and "You can simply install this on your non-jailbroken device. You should--and apparently don't--know that the laws permitting jailbreaking currently only apply to cell phones, not to AppleTV, in spite of jailbreakers' claims to the contrary. As soon as you take measures to circumvent measures to crack an AppleTV, you are breaking the law. Apple has so far chosen not to go after people for doing so, but if they wanted to, they certainly could.
"Crippled"? Did you miss the part where hacking around with it is encouraged? What's "crippled" to me is a closed-box system in which not only is it hard to hack around, but it's explicitly illegal--i.e. devices like the Roku, AppleTV, etc.
I think that this is going to be Google's way of saying, "Okay, here's the device and what it can do, now you all go figure out cool ways to use it." If so, not only is the Q not DOA, it actually has the potential to be much more functional than almost any consumer-level device that's currently out there.
So wait a minute. You're telling me that lobbyists have a scarce resource (money) that Congressmen want--nay, need--to keep their jobs and their livelihoods, and you don't think they use this fact to their advantage to get legislation passed conducive to their interests? That entities with more of this scarce resource that Congressmen need to keep their jobs tend to be more ingratiated in the political process to obtain more of this scarce resource than those with less or none? You don't consider this a form of corruption?
Congratulations! You just won the "Best Comment King Skippus Has Read in a Long Time" award. Yes, it's not exactly something you can show off on your mantle, and there's no cash prize associated with it, but at least you have the satisfaction of knowing that you connected with some random anonymous person on the Internet who read what you said and thought to himself, "Oh hell yeah, THAT person gets it!"
You obviously don't know what a perverse incentive is.
With a normal company--that is, one without a perverse incentive, the more someone needs your service the more money you make and the more incentive you have to be a good company and provide them good service. In the insurance industry, the opposite is true. The more someone needs your service, the less money you make--very possibly to the point of costing you money, thus the faster you try to ditch them as a customer by any means necessary--screw them over has hard as you can.
This is a classic case in which government should step in--a case in which the free market does not work as intended, especially since it is an area that is essential for people's health and lives. That is why I assert and maintain that when it comes to health care, the only answer is a single-payer system that we all support.
Contrary to popular belief, this doesn't mean that there is no room in health care for the free market to operate. The way it should work is that we have a national health care system that pays medical costs of all U.S. citizens, and taxes are raised to cover the costs. A national health care board sets standard market rates for various procedures based on current market rates by geographical area, and periodically reassess them to see if any adjustments need to be made. Health care providers can charge that rate and be guaranteed the income from patients using the national health care system. Or optionally, they can charge more if they want, with the extra costs being incurred by the patient.
This would provide for a competitive environment within the health care industry. If the standard rate for open heart surgery is $x, but you're a distinguished cardiologist with a sterling reputation, you can charge $(2 * x) if people are willing to pony up the extra $x to have you as their surgeon. Or if the standard rate for a root canal is $y, you can offer optional "while you sleep" service for $(y + 300). There wouldn't be any restrictions on what doctors you can or can't see, or what patients a doctor must or must not accept, at least none that aren't in place already.
Does that mean that some healthy people who are paying less for health care now would end up paying more? Yes. This isn't a bad thing. When you have someone making $30,000 per year needing a $500,000 transplant and medication that costs $500 per month, either 1) we just let them die (not an option to most civilized societies), or 2) someone has to pay for the health care. Right now, that "someone" is already the taxpayer, so really, not much would change except the quality and availability of less serious health care--which, incidentally, thanks to more availability of preventative health care means that maybe that person doesn't end up needing a $500,000 transplant and $500 per month medication--to millions of people.
In an ideal world, people simply wouldn't get sick and ideals like not having to pay for other people's health care wouldn't be an issue. In the practical one that we live in, sometimes you have to compromise your principles to live in a better society.
Probably so--the individual mandate was a Republican idea to begin with.
I admire the Democrats for helping to tackle health care reform. There are some really good things in there--preventing insurance companies from rescinding coverage, allowing parents to insure kids up to 26, etc. But as a Democrat, I have mixed feelings about today's decision. I do not like the individual mandate, as like you, I feel that Congress shouldn't have the power to make you buy something from a private company.
I was actually hoping that the law would stand as-is, except for the individual mandate, which I was hoping would be overturned. At that point, insurance companies would be screwed--they'd still be forced to cover those that they traditionally worked so hard to drop off the rolls, but without money coming in from those who are statistically healthier and less likely to pay for insurance. At that point, one of two things would happen: either 1) the insurance companies would lower prices on their policies to reasonable levels to be more conducive for healthy people to buy, or 2) the insurance industry would basically petition government to expand Medicare to cover those that they don't want to. Either way, it would be win/win.
Ultimately, the only answer is a single-payer system. As long as you have private companies in the insurance business, there is a perverse incentive to screw their customers over. People whine and complain about government's incompetence, and I'd never say there's no waste or that government is perfect. However, I trust government a hell of a lot more than I trust the insurance industry, which has proven time and again that they're scum.
Where did I say that it would be "more likely to convict [me] than exonerate [me]?" I'm a safe driver, thank you very much. If such a thing were ever used for evidence, the odds are overwhelmingly good that it would be in my favor. However, I also admit that sometimes I do make mistakes, and I don't want my own video used to incriminate myself if I do screw something up. Let them invest their own damn money into buying things to provide evidence for them.
Just to be clear, I'm not blaming Google or expecting them to do something about it. You're right--they have to abide by what law enforcement dictates. That was really what I was getting at--I'm blaming law enforcement (and content companies and the RIAA/MPAA, etc.) for likely ruining this really cool product before it even launches.
I have two major concerns about this, neither of which are safety-related.
First, as I mentioned above, it would have to be absolutely clear that I alone control the data on it. If I'm involved in an automobile accident, for example, I don't want to be arrested for obstruction of justice if I decide to delete the video. However, if I need to use it in court, I would get to choose to keep it as evidence.
Second, what about privacy concerns? I mean, right now, if I see a hot girl, I have my memories. Not any more, now I have video of her that I can upload to Facebook! Will people take these things off in restrooms out of respect? I doubt it. Will I never be able to tell off-color jokes to my friends who have these again because it might come up at an inconvenient time when I'm interviewing for a job at some point?
As a lesser but still valid concern, what about copyright? I'm sure that movie theaters would have a cow if you wore them in. What if I'm just lounging around the house and happen to have the television on or a song playing on the Nexus Q, am I going to be sued by Sony or making illegal copies of copyrighted material? Are they going to build in a kill switch for Google Glass controlled by your content-protected television? Etc.
This is a fascinating technology, but not without some challenges. I can't wait to see what happens as these things are worked out.
Better yet, "Hey son, check this out, it's the exact moment you came into existence!"
Seriously, though, this does look cool. There have been a lot of times when I wish I had a video camera handy but just didn't want to fool with one, even built into a cell phone. Also, if it keeps basically a circular realtime recording of everything going on, it would be really handy to re-watch things that you normally wouldn't be recording at all.
One thing that I suspect will have to be addressed at some point is exactly how much control you have over the data. For example, if you're involved in a wreck, it would be really nice to have the video showing exactly what happened since eyewitness testimony is so unreliable and people tend to lie. But would you be arrested for obstruction of justice if you deleted the video off of your Google Glass because you knew you were speeding?
The insult to injury is that it's not really "customer" exploitation at all. Most of Silicon Valley's customers are companies buying advertising. It's consumersploitation. Working at a huge MNC myself, I'm keenly aware of the difference between customers and consumers.
True, it's "only" around $1.5 million that he owes right now. Still, it's a valid point, and the problem with levying such exorbitant fines. If I were fined $1.5 million for something, at that point, no amount of additional fines would ever make a difference in my activities. Whether it's $1.5 million or $1.5 billion, I know I'm never going to pay it off, so what difference does it make? If I were fined $1.5 million for something, I would pretty much take it as free license to do whatever I want from that point forward with no concern whatsoever for monetary penalties.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple's patent has tons of prior art. Your passive aggressive attempt to defend Apple merely shows you what a fanboi you truly are.
Yeah, it's got tons of prior art, but so the hell what? Until Google pays its pound of flesh in money and time to have it invalidated, that doesn't make a rat's ass worth of difference. That's not fanboyism, that's just the way the system works.
Apple is a company. As a company, it is going to do whatever it can legally do to thwart its competition. If that means obtaining a patent that will at some point later be ruled invalid and then using it to temporarily take your competitor's products off the market, or better yet, get them to disable certain feature of it, that conveys a certain impression to a lot of your competitor's existing and would-be customers: that 1) your competitor cannot be relied upon to deliver said features, and 2) that your competitor is basically creating knock-offs of your superior product.
There is a really damn good chance that this patent will be invalidated at some point--I'm hoping it during this trial. But the damage is done, and even though the patent isn't valid, Apple will have won a marketing battle from it.
The GP is exactly right on the money: The problem is with the system. Blame Apple all you want for not acting in an ethical manner, but if you think it's acceptable to have a system in place that depends on companies acting ethically, boy are you in the wrong country.
Even if Apple goes out of business tomorrow (fat chance...), the GP is also right that there will always be another company right behind them using the same practices to thwart its competition and get ahead. Even if somehow the plug was pulled on Apple doing this, what are you going to do about the 158 companies lined up right behind Apple to extract their pound of flesh from Google? Try to squash them too? Good luck with that.
In the meantime, sane, rational people like the GP understand that the only way to solve this problem once and for all is to change the system so that it doesn't depend on companies being ethical. Take away their weapons, software patents, and we won't have to worry about Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, or anyone else using the shitty system like this any more, and companies like Google (and yes, Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, etc.) can focus more of their time, energy, and money on producing cool products instead of fighting these incessant court battles.
I'll reply to this since you seem to not be one of the mindless idiots who just spout off Republican talking points.
But at the same time, these accomplishments are being questioned by nearly half of the American people, according to most polls.
It's important to denote exactly what is being questioned. What specifically are people objecting to? If you ask the average schmo on the street who professes to not like Obama's policies, they'll spit back some vague, general notion like, "expansion of government," or, "increasing taxes," and the like. But when you question people about the actual specifics of what Democrats have accomplished in the past four years, people start changing their tune.
The health care law is an excellent example. You're right, a lot of people do indeed oppose "Obamacare." But what exactly do they oppose? Preventing policy recision by insurance companies? No, they overwhelmingly support that. Requiring that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions? No, they overwhelming support that. The ability of parents to keep their kids covered on their insurance plan until age 26? No, they support that. Closing the Medicare "doughnut hole"? No, they overwhelmingly support that. Public exchanges where people who can't get insured elsewhere can get affordable coverage? No, they support that.
The Republicans are in an awful tight squeeze here. If they oppose the details of Obamacare, they know they'll get crucified. There's only one aspect of the law that there's significant opposition to by the American electorate: the individual mandate. But here's the rub: The individual mandate is a Republican idea, not a Democratic one. It was invented by Republicans, sponsored by Republicans, and passed by a Republican governor of Massachusetts--Mitt Romney.
"But if it's a Republican idea, why was it passed by a Democratic Congress and president?" That's a good question, and you have to remember the history of the health care debate to understand the answer.
Originally, Democrats didn't want an individual mandate, they wanted a single-payer system. Remember when Bill Clinton was President and he and Hillary were trying to get the national health care card passed but it fell flat on its face? Democrats didn't want a repeat of that, so they compromised with what they dubbed the "public option." The notion was that everyone who didn't have insurance would be provided, either for free or for discounted rates, a government-sponsored health care plan. To keep everyone from flocking to this option, though, employers would be required to provide insurance coverage unless they met certain small-business qualifications to be exempt. It was intended to be the insurer of last resort, but it was also intended to ensure universal coverage for everyone.
To understand why that didn't pass, you have to also understand the political climate at the time. Obama had just won election against John McCain, and Republicans were absolutely furious. They resolved that their number one priority was to get him out of office. This isn't speculation or left-wing conspiracy theory, they openly admitted it. Mitch McConnell, Republican Senate minority leader, has said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Jeff Sessions, Republican senator from Alabama, pledge to block every single Obama appointee. The political climate of Washington was poisonous.
However, one of Obama's campaign promises was to work with Republicans, to integrate some of their ideas into policy and legislation that he would support. Remember, the Democrats had a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate as well as the White House. They could have steamrolled any damn legislation they wanted down Republicans' throats, and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it. But they didn't want to do that--for one thing, they would have come off as total
The 24 is to differentiate it from 8 hours in a standard business day, the 7 is to differentiate it from 5 days per week, a normal business-type week, and the 365 is to emphasize that whatever is being talked about applies to holidays that most people take off. The x is short for "by", not the "times" operator. In short, it is simply an idiomatic expression to mean something happening continuously, with no night, weekend, or holiday breaks.
No, but it is possible to go from +5, Insightful to -1, Troll in the span of about an hour. Not that I care so much, but methinks that some angry Republican out there has a bunch of sockpuppet accounts set up to get multiple mod points.
You're wrong in a very fundamental way. Obama most certainly is proud of his accomplishments, as are most Democrats who voted for him. Among other things, he's dramatically changed the health care landscape for the better, he's helped to radically shift society's perception of homosexuality, and militarily he's kicked ass, accomplishing the destruction of the most hated person on earth since Adolph Hitler. Am I in love with everything the guy's done? No, but on the whole, I am extremely proud to proclaim that I supported him in 2008, and I am happily doing so again this year.
You seem to be buying Republican attempts to make him out as ineffectual. I know it's pretty difficult with right wing politicians, Fox News and a whole bunch of talking heads on the radio constantly spewing out lies and misrepresentations about his record and corporations who want the unfettered ability to run roughshod over our freedoms spending hundreds of millions, possibly even billions of dollars on 24x7x365 slick well-planned marketing campaigns designed to get the poor and middle class to vote against their own self-interest. It's clearly a case of the old adage of telling a lie enough until even the person telling it believes it's true.
But make no mistake, I am not supporting him because of any kind of "I'm not GWB" campaign. The fact is that he inherited a hell of a mess caused by eight years of bad policy, and he's done an amazing job turning things around. Most Democrats knew this well enough in 2009 that they really haven't needed to constantly remind everyone except when Republicans keep trotting out things like the massive job losses that the U.S. sustained in Obama's first year when we were still operating under Bush's economy. If Republicans would stop pitching these losses as Obama's fault before he even had a chance to enact any policies, we would stop reminding everyone why those numbers were so bad.
But yeah, it's most certainly not more of the same. Ask anyone who is getting mortgage relief now. Ask any gay member of the military. Ask anyone who had their insurance policy canceled during the Bush years because they had an incurable condition. Ask the brave members of SEAL Team Six. Ask any young immigrant who is here through no decision of their own but, until a couple of weeks ago, faced the threat of deportation to a country they've never known. Anyone who thinks that the past four years have been more of the same is either lying, stupid, or grossly not paying attention.
We still have HOPE and we've seen CHANGE. Backtracking on that now would be one of the dumbest things the American electorate could ever do.
Really? Google's going "out of their way"? I checked the Nexus Q web site, and funny enough, I don't see any stars and stripes plastered on it. There's a notation on the Q itself, but it's inset on the back of the unit without any kind of painted letters or anything; even less obvious than the "Made in China" stickers I see plastered on most other things I buy.
As far as I can tell, the "Made in the USA" thing originated from a tech reporter asking someone who worked on the project why it's more expensive than similar devices. From there, a lot of people made a big deal out of it. While I'm sure that Google doesn't mind the publicity, I think that saying that they're going "out of their way to loudly proclaim that" is a bit of an overstatement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OdioWorks_v._Apple#OdioWorks_v._Apple
Well, what do you expect? The USA has outsourced just about all of its high-tech manufacturing overseas. There are a lot of parts that Google probably can't even get domestically. I think the point is that they're making more of the thing in the USA than most electronic gizmos. If they're successful and there's a lot of demand for the Nexus Q, and more importantly, if other companies follow suit and the demand for electronics supply to be close-at-hand increases, then you'll see a ripple effect for more things like chips being manufactured in the USA.
So you've been hanging out in bars around Cupertino too, eh?
You should--and probably do--know that there's a huge difference between, "You have to jailbreak your device for this to work," and "You can simply install this on your non-jailbroken device. You should--and apparently don't--know that the laws permitting jailbreaking currently only apply to cell phones, not to AppleTV, in spite of jailbreakers' claims to the contrary. As soon as you take measures to circumvent measures to crack an AppleTV, you are breaking the law. Apple has so far chosen not to go after people for doing so, but if they wanted to, they certainly could.
"Crippled"? Did you miss the part where hacking around with it is encouraged? What's "crippled" to me is a closed-box system in which not only is it hard to hack around, but it's explicitly illegal--i.e. devices like the Roku, AppleTV, etc.
I think that this is going to be Google's way of saying, "Okay, here's the device and what it can do, now you all go figure out cool ways to use it." If so, not only is the Q not DOA, it actually has the potential to be much more functional than almost any consumer-level device that's currently out there.
Time, as they say, will tell.
I am a bit of a Google fanboy and I couldn't resist putting in an order for one of the first Nexus Qs.
This is in spite of the fact that I own two Rokus (one for my main TV, one for my GoogleTV) and have an XBMC box for my main TV.
This doesn't make you a Google fanboy, it makes you an electronics gadget fanboy. No shame in that. ;)
The only reasonable explanation is that Judge Koh is bipolar. She really should seek help.
Or put another way, the fact that there are starving kids in Africa does not mean that I couldn't go for some tacos right now.
So wait a minute. You're telling me that lobbyists have a scarce resource (money) that Congressmen want--nay, need--to keep their jobs and their livelihoods, and you don't think they use this fact to their advantage to get legislation passed conducive to their interests? That entities with more of this scarce resource that Congressmen need to keep their jobs tend to be more ingratiated in the political process to obtain more of this scarce resource than those with less or none? You don't consider this a form of corruption?
Congratulations! You just won the "Best Comment King Skippus Has Read in a Long Time" award. Yes, it's not exactly something you can show off on your mantle, and there's no cash prize associated with it, but at least you have the satisfaction of knowing that you connected with some random anonymous person on the Internet who read what you said and thought to himself, "Oh hell yeah, THAT person gets it!"
You obviously don't know what a perverse incentive is.
With a normal company--that is, one without a perverse incentive, the more someone needs your service the more money you make and the more incentive you have to be a good company and provide them good service. In the insurance industry, the opposite is true. The more someone needs your service, the less money you make--very possibly to the point of costing you money, thus the faster you try to ditch them as a customer by any means necessary--screw them over has hard as you can.
This is a classic case in which government should step in--a case in which the free market does not work as intended, especially since it is an area that is essential for people's health and lives. That is why I assert and maintain that when it comes to health care, the only answer is a single-payer system that we all support.
Contrary to popular belief, this doesn't mean that there is no room in health care for the free market to operate. The way it should work is that we have a national health care system that pays medical costs of all U.S. citizens, and taxes are raised to cover the costs. A national health care board sets standard market rates for various procedures based on current market rates by geographical area, and periodically reassess them to see if any adjustments need to be made. Health care providers can charge that rate and be guaranteed the income from patients using the national health care system. Or optionally, they can charge more if they want, with the extra costs being incurred by the patient.
This would provide for a competitive environment within the health care industry. If the standard rate for open heart surgery is $x, but you're a distinguished cardiologist with a sterling reputation, you can charge $(2 * x) if people are willing to pony up the extra $x to have you as their surgeon. Or if the standard rate for a root canal is $y, you can offer optional "while you sleep" service for $(y + 300). There wouldn't be any restrictions on what doctors you can or can't see, or what patients a doctor must or must not accept, at least none that aren't in place already.
Does that mean that some healthy people who are paying less for health care now would end up paying more? Yes. This isn't a bad thing. When you have someone making $30,000 per year needing a $500,000 transplant and medication that costs $500 per month, either 1) we just let them die (not an option to most civilized societies), or 2) someone has to pay for the health care. Right now, that "someone" is already the taxpayer, so really, not much would change except the quality and availability of less serious health care--which, incidentally, thanks to more availability of preventative health care means that maybe that person doesn't end up needing a $500,000 transplant and $500 per month medication--to millions of people.
In an ideal world, people simply wouldn't get sick and ideals like not having to pay for other people's health care wouldn't be an issue. In the practical one that we live in, sometimes you have to compromise your principles to live in a better society.
Probably so--the individual mandate was a Republican idea to begin with.
I admire the Democrats for helping to tackle health care reform. There are some really good things in there--preventing insurance companies from rescinding coverage, allowing parents to insure kids up to 26, etc. But as a Democrat, I have mixed feelings about today's decision. I do not like the individual mandate, as like you, I feel that Congress shouldn't have the power to make you buy something from a private company.
I was actually hoping that the law would stand as-is, except for the individual mandate, which I was hoping would be overturned. At that point, insurance companies would be screwed--they'd still be forced to cover those that they traditionally worked so hard to drop off the rolls, but without money coming in from those who are statistically healthier and less likely to pay for insurance. At that point, one of two things would happen: either 1) the insurance companies would lower prices on their policies to reasonable levels to be more conducive for healthy people to buy, or 2) the insurance industry would basically petition government to expand Medicare to cover those that they don't want to. Either way, it would be win/win.
Ultimately, the only answer is a single-payer system. As long as you have private companies in the insurance business, there is a perverse incentive to screw their customers over. People whine and complain about government's incompetence, and I'd never say there's no waste or that government is perfect. However, I trust government a hell of a lot more than I trust the insurance industry, which has proven time and again that they're scum.
Where did I say that it would be "more likely to convict [me] than exonerate [me]?" I'm a safe driver, thank you very much. If such a thing were ever used for evidence, the odds are overwhelmingly good that it would be in my favor. However, I also admit that sometimes I do make mistakes, and I don't want my own video used to incriminate myself if I do screw something up. Let them invest their own damn money into buying things to provide evidence for them.
Just to be clear, I'm not blaming Google or expecting them to do something about it. You're right--they have to abide by what law enforcement dictates. That was really what I was getting at--I'm blaming law enforcement (and content companies and the RIAA/MPAA, etc.) for likely ruining this really cool product before it even launches.
...Thus proving my point. I'd rather simply not have this, than have it knowing that it can be used against me.
I have two major concerns about this, neither of which are safety-related.
First, as I mentioned above, it would have to be absolutely clear that I alone control the data on it. If I'm involved in an automobile accident, for example, I don't want to be arrested for obstruction of justice if I decide to delete the video. However, if I need to use it in court, I would get to choose to keep it as evidence.
Second, what about privacy concerns? I mean, right now, if I see a hot girl, I have my memories. Not any more, now I have video of her that I can upload to Facebook! Will people take these things off in restrooms out of respect? I doubt it. Will I never be able to tell off-color jokes to my friends who have these again because it might come up at an inconvenient time when I'm interviewing for a job at some point?
As a lesser but still valid concern, what about copyright? I'm sure that movie theaters would have a cow if you wore them in. What if I'm just lounging around the house and happen to have the television on or a song playing on the Nexus Q, am I going to be sued by Sony or making illegal copies of copyrighted material? Are they going to build in a kill switch for Google Glass controlled by your content-protected television? Etc.
This is a fascinating technology, but not without some challenges. I can't wait to see what happens as these things are worked out.
Better yet, "Hey son, check this out, it's the exact moment you came into existence!"
Seriously, though, this does look cool. There have been a lot of times when I wish I had a video camera handy but just didn't want to fool with one, even built into a cell phone. Also, if it keeps basically a circular realtime recording of everything going on, it would be really handy to re-watch things that you normally wouldn't be recording at all.
One thing that I suspect will have to be addressed at some point is exactly how much control you have over the data. For example, if you're involved in a wreck, it would be really nice to have the video showing exactly what happened since eyewitness testimony is so unreliable and people tend to lie. But would you be arrested for obstruction of justice if you deleted the video off of your Google Glass because you knew you were speeding?
The insult to injury is that it's not really "customer" exploitation at all. Most of Silicon Valley's customers are companies buying advertising. It's consumersploitation. Working at a huge MNC myself, I'm keenly aware of the difference between customers and consumers.
True, it's "only" around $1.5 million that he owes right now. Still, it's a valid point, and the problem with levying such exorbitant fines. If I were fined $1.5 million for something, at that point, no amount of additional fines would ever make a difference in my activities. Whether it's $1.5 million or $1.5 billion, I know I'm never going to pay it off, so what difference does it make? If I were fined $1.5 million for something, I would pretty much take it as free license to do whatever I want from that point forward with no concern whatsoever for monetary penalties.