That would require they move away from their current setup that shifts away from 'inflating' your signal and 'inflating' apples awesomeness...
I think part of the issue is dB ranges of 0-~100 = 4-5 bars. dB Ranges 100-113 = zero-3 bars. You don't enter the '3' bar range until you're already on a weak signal, and can 'death grip' your phone to death. The article reported a max of ~24 dB signal drop from poor holding. From the looks you don't have to hold it too improperly to suddenly go 3 bars->disconnect.
This becomes an issue since people check their reception.. okay, 2-3 bars, im good... Then go make a call, or hold their phone to their head, and boom, 15dB difference, bye call.
The idea of "showing more bars to make users more comfortable" (or 'showing more bars to make people who think bars are standardized across phones think ours are better)... backfires when your 'bar' range doesn't properly tell people how close to disconnect they are and is 'mysteriously' goes from 3 bars to 0 -- like some people report.
been a long time, but back when I was building websites it was commonly stated that (as long as the website is in english/for english audiences), people attempt to read from top-left to bottom-right, just like a book... if you made a well designed menu you might channel their eyes more top-down along the left, if you don't, then they will start top-left but may read across....
At least, that's the natural tendency... annnddd most of the information I'm stating was from the time before Flash was on almost every website... The most 'active' distraction would be a multi-color flashing.GIF that stripped too many colors from the pallet to reduce the file size... so my info's dated;-p
Well, following in the "Title" of the "Tron Yamaha Honda Kawasaki Harley Suzuki Motorcycle," technically this bike would go next to your "Toyota Audi Ford Sony Harmen-Carmen Motorola bat mobile"
As soon as I saw the 'false advertising' I stopped caring about the cool factor, someone who needs to claim they have 7 manufacturers for their bike isn't getting my money, even if this was a scale 3-inch tall model for $50!
Another sad bit of information ---
"Surfwhatever" program checks a pre-set list of 10 websites (microsoft.com, msn.com, go.com, apple.com, ebay.com, myspace.com)... All of which are (I checked most) california-based data/web centers.
Oh wait, Ebay came back as Denver!
They should have better selected a list of web servers, (seriously, who goes to aol.com? and whats go.com?).. Looks like their list all favors California, as, I guess, the entirety of the internet exists solely in California and no where else in the world (or United States).
/hug Slashdot Chicago server.... Way to deviate from the norm!!/hug
I actually signed up as First/Last Name "Unsolicited mail" with my mailing address set to the FTC Building in Washington DC. (To my knowledge, I was not given a check-box that allowed me to opt-out/in on communication)
Using my spam-catching e-mail address hosted by hotmail for all my "never check this address again" needs.
Yes, you can buy higher speed and thus invalidate the 'findings' of the article... Which is really just self-promotion with a fancy title to attract attention.
I was kinda disappointed that the article doesn't address maximum speed, or average speed amongst all "5mbps" connections, instead it lumps in DSL, Cable, and Fiber and says "HEY LoOk! Fiber is usually faster!!"
What this is really testing is "How much speed do Americans purchase, by region,"... it's just.. almost.. completely useless... except for a few statistical data points that are not frequently mentioned (broadband penetration by state).. We're comparing ISP by what the end-users paid for, as opposed to what end users CAN pay for (i.e. the limit of the technology)... or, as an alternative test, they could have tested Like-speed connections average performance across carriers, but instead they are grouping DSL, Fiber, and Cable..... and ignoring that some people pay $20 for internet while others want to pay $50 (for semi-basic home internet service) and claiming an ISP is "The best" because they have more users that spend more money on internet. (or they have less users but much higher speed to result in the same data skewing of results).
So yeah, Metrics, IMO, are mostly crap. And Mississippi can pull ahead of every state in this 'survey' simply by spending an extra $5... hell for $10 extra you can probably get speeds 5 times faster then most of the United States!
Yup,
If you're using another person, or entities, internet connection you are subject to the 'limits' their network enforces.
Without an agreement (i.e. public free WiFi) generally speaking you don't have a 'right' to require they provide SSL services. However, without an agreement signed by you (or agreed to as a "Click wrap" requirement website before internet is allowed)... They'd be hard pressed to be able to "Snoop" and record your data.
If you signed an agreement with the company/employer/place to gain access to their services, you have to accept their requirements, even if that includes "snooping" at least up to the point it violates a law.
But IANAL, I just feel from reading some peoples comments here that people expect their employer or free wifi location should provide SSL so they can bypass their company/employer/location's "Conditions of use" requirements and look at pr0n (or do whatever else) at McDonalds or work.
T-mobile call-in customer support is the best of all the big 4 -- And I've had them all, at the same time actually.
I worked for T-Mobile (Indirect) for just under a year, and then for Best buy Mobile (which in my area did Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T)
For the first year at BBM I had a line with all 4 carriers (Discounted, being a sales rep for all the companies) and I frequently called all 4 on a regular basis -- as some actions require you call in, including calling t-mobile when the customers had them and were switching.
My experience showed t-mobile had a consistently well trained staff of CSR's. The only problem with T-Mobile was coverage. Eventually I came to the conclusion that, if signal is fine where you use it, T-Mobile provided the best end-user experience especially when factoring in 'problems' that required customer service help.
Some common issues:
1. ~70% of T-Mobile standing stores are *NOT* Corporately owned by T-Mobile. A large percentage of AT&T And Sprint stores are NOT corporately owned. In these stores your experience will vary but T-Mobile offers their indirect dealers free training by their corporate staff. T-Mobile also is adamant about NOT SIGNING YOU UP if you have poor coverage.
2. T-Mobile's "Coverage map" is the most accurate of all 4 carriers. Verizons coverage map does not give you 'strong' 'moderate' 'weak'.. If you get 1/2 a bar (and thus frequently dropped calls) well.. your call connected, your covered! AT&T I'd put at 2nd best for coverage maps, but TMobile is far, far ahead in honesty here.
3. Customer service hates getting yelled at, avoid the yelling stage at least for 10-15 minutes
4. Sprint's Customer service generally is fairly good, if you can get one of them on the line, you're nice to the rep (after waiting 2-3 hours--though that's getting better), and you're not 'abusing' the system
5. If you buy from an indirect dealer, use them to make any changes for the next 6 months to help avoid breach of secondary contracts. Indirect dealers can frequently give you a better deal ONLY IF YOU COMMIT to features for 6 months. Otherwise the carrier revokes the commission they pay the indirect store and makes them pocket the loss for the phone at that point (so the indirect store *must* have a 2ndary contract to stay in business) -- same with ETF's.
6. Verizon has the "largest 3G network" but their technology limits their maximum speed to be about 60% of what AT&T & T-Mobile can get on 3G. If you have a "3.5g" (HSDPA+) AT&T or T-Mobile phone that variance grows even more -- Assuming you're (a) covered by t-mobile, and (b) not in New York on AT&T
Oh, final note, Verizon & Sprint Share towers, at least for basic calls AT&T & T-Mobile share towers for basic calls
Make sure your roaming is enabled on your phone (sometimes the feature is well hidden since, obviously, carriers don't want you to roam). Data Services -- especially for at&t/t-mobile don't get shared at 3G speeds -- but are sharable at 2G speeds.
It's unfortunate, but... you cant expect people whom have been voted into office will allow others to more easily take their place. I'm glad the judicial system can edge in on the election system (within its limits)...
Though personally I don't think those whom are elected should be able to make/change laws about elections... but that would just make the system more complex and larger... So when the judicial system steps in and tries to keep things constitutionally in line I appreciate it.
Well if there is a law currently preventing unsolicited faxing, it would seem as though this 'targeted ads' idea with advert-replacement (with HP-desired advert) might work.
Though, If I had a web page there would be 2-3 issues I'd be concerned about:
1) Advert-replacement from my controlled advertisements (through keyword filtering) to adverts I have *no* control over. (What if it's a personal blog and I call John Doe a dick... when it goes to print they get __(take a guess)__ enlargement adverts that I, previously, blocked from showing.... now the printed copy of my website degrades in value to anyone that the printed version is shown to... not that a blog of my life would have advertisements, be read, or had paper wasted on it...
2) If it's a web page with no advertisements (for instance, a fun web page about me disassembling my printer -- which I have done for fun:-))... So what if this article (which I could claim copyright for) had advertisements inserted? Does that constitute alteration of copyrighted material by inserting new information (the advertisements)?
3) Additional Ink/paper usage -- Do end users have a right to charge back HP/Yahoo for the ink & paper usage?
Just a quick scenario -- I recently printed out about 100 pages for my online course work. Each page I went in and 'Printed selection' and scaled it to maximize the space (minimize the paper used). If an advertisement was forced in after this preview forcing it to more pages, OR if I had no control over if the advert was in the print or not... Then my efforts to be semi-green (which really for me was a side effect of being efficient.. but same end result, just different names)...
Do I get to charge HP the penny? With the extra wasted pages I could fold the 'wasted' papers into a letter and an envelope (with a few staples) and send it to their office! (Well, once I have a claim that is more then the cost of the stamp).
Just my thoughts, overall I hate this idea. I think everyone has the right to control the information that is printed from their property (or "Licensed printers" -- added in case printers get a "end user license agreement" that strip your copyright protections too).. Last thing I want is all the HP printers in the school printing off advertisements that can't be (easily) controlled by a firewall or other web-filtering material -- and HP would probably get away with it for most automated services.
Due to the technical nature of the information I'd probably accept that it is, in fact, true... Other then this small source of information I was unable to find an article about 'manufacturers designing cars to understeer.' I did notice a lot of people mentioning this fact, part of why I wanted to spend 5-10 minutes to try and find a source.
Not the US.
Big corporations all have escapes from paying taxes... part of the reason we're in our mess with the deficit...
Company's have to "pay patent holders" (also owned by the ceo/corporation) in another country 100% of their profits in order to maintain use of the patents they developed in the US..... and 'sold' for pennies to their foreign side of the company
(If you missed it, 100% of profits is a variable amount meaning the US company makes no profit and avoids some taxes because of that, apparently)
I would assume it would be a clause to the effect of: "If we see you do it again you will pay $______," which I do believe is enforceable by a judge & court as a result of a court case... (of course, needing another review/trial/something to prove)
This *sounds*, currently, to be a fair lawsuit. RIAA/MPAA typical ask for massive amounts of money for possessing a song (not necessarily distribution), such as $2,000/song you download or $25,000/album
Seems like this lawsuit is aiming for "Stop, we know who you are now, delete your copies, don't do it again... + court costs" if found guilty...
Sounds fair in my boat... if not being a little easy on the copyright violation for possession... I personally think they should tack on a little extra for the lost revenue -- say $40-100, a fair value for what they might get if the person watched it in the theaters (with a friend or two) and/or bought the dvd/blueray
I always discount scientific data/results not because of my own beliefs, but because I believe the scientists (or employers/funders) belief/goal is being pushed and it wasn't properly scientifically tested.
Many times we read stories here where one scientific study contradicts another scientific study.
GPL or not...
I would think it *very* difficult for the FSF to uphold GPL violation on the grounds of 'binary distributor' at least to the extent that apple pays any fine/penalty.
Unless the developer submitted to Apple the GPL Agreement, and apple signed off on or ignored the GPL and put it up anyway, I'm sure lawyers will get Apple off the hook...
If the developer striped GPL license information, or did not provide it to apple -- then how can Apple be held responsible for a GPL violation when they never agreed to it (except by proxy) -- and I'm sure something in their T&C protects them from developers imposing a 3rd parties contract on apple itself.
Article only states he refused to hand out the network admin passwords to a room and speakerphone full of people he felt were unqualified. There was no mention of who exactly wanted the passwords -- or if a follow-up attempt by 'a superior' was made while not on speakerphone. If he is in trouble for JUST the refusal to give the password out on speakerphone and in a room with a dozen people, I'd give him a pat on the back and a bonus for proper IT security.
When I was an IT assistant at a high school, I'd pull the same stunt if my boss (or the principle) asked me on speakerphone to give out the local admin passwords on the computers to a dozen people (Staff, teachers)...
Just like Terry (If i read correctly)... I'd be protecting the computers and the network security by withholding the admin passwords from people unqualified to have admin access without admin intelligence in the field (i.e. not sticky-noting the local computer password to the monitor on the computer for kids to see)
Already was hard enough keeping kids from installing kazaa and other security hazards without admin rights... give out the admin password to a dozen non-IT security-unaware people? yeah right....
One of terry's listeners probably would have put the admin password on a stickynote to his work and home computers..
A lot of people only have 1 Provider to choose from. In such cases the "Use a different provider" (or "Don't like it, dont use it") comments really do not work.
~7-8 years back I only had Cox Communications for internet speeds above dial-up. It was horrible. Terrible. Frightening. However, it was the only high speed choice.
For 2 Years I ran with a back up dial up connection to make sure I could still get online when service went out (which it frequently did from 5pm-9pm).
Thankfully, because I live outside DC, we eventually had new people move in and competition ensued. I swapped companies and had much better service (as in Internet service, not customer service -- i never had to call them!) and eventually FIOS moved in... I now have high quality reliable service.
When the monopoly existed it was crap. After the monopoly broke the service improved dramatically....
There was no vocal ID that there were kids there until they were being carried. I don't even really recognize them as children in the low quality video (unless there's a giant arrow pointing to the window saying "LOOK CHILDREN HERE" and basically "WATCH THE USA KILL CHILDREN"
I've stated before in this Slashdot I agree it's horrible, but I can find little fault with the gunship so long as the gunship was told the group had weapons. Given a group with weapons there's a lot of supporting information that is visible (wide shoulder straps, the 'RPG' call there was a man on a knee pointing a thick black object up at the sky).
I don't like to fault front-line soldiers for what happens in a war (or ""Conflict"").
The real faults I see here are the politics of covering up, instead of working to make sure it doesn't happen again... Through training, changing rules, better verification before firing. It's sad that it happened, and I'm sorry for the reporters families... However, the soldiers want to make sure the buddies next to them get home alive, and they are told to follow the rules, orders, and 'suggestions' from higher ups to ensure that.
Why not give reporters a GPS (with ID) to identify where they are and plug that into their maps with troop locations. - Only allow specific ID's - If duplicates show up (spoofed) mark both groups as caution - Require updates morning, mid-day, evening by reporters - This lets 'eyes in the sky' get the information on reporter locations
I Agree this is a horrible act, but I also respect their side of it.
1) It is difficult to identify what is 'carried' -- Video shows at least 2 guys with shoulder-strapped blocks of black at their side. 2) We know it's cameras. The air crew may have been told the group had weapons (first minute of video hinted that the air crew was looking for the group -- so someone else must have seen it) 3) The RPG Call -- Just as it was called there was a man down on a knee with his camera up by his shoulder (or at least pointed at an upward angle from below).
So, gunship sees part of a black box sticking out from a corner pointed upwards... If I was told they have weapons, that's a fair call.
The van: There was no markings on the van. Children are NOT very visible and never left the vehicle. To them it's as they called it and I agree.
That said, and as I said, this is horrible. The Cover-up is horrible. The deaths are horrible. But there's also missing information from the video, which was edited to MAKE SURE YOU KNEW HOW HORRIBLE THE ARMY IS... Granted some of it historically may be true, but the setup and constant pop-ups -- if the 'children' pop up didn't come up I wouldn't have noticed it -- I was tracking the man moving, as I'm sure the gunship was, not looking in the window of the vehicle to see who's driving or passenger inside (no threat to 'my' safety at that point)
But again, hindsight....
The real story here is the cover up, and possibly needing to wear/identify yourself/your vehicles better. If that van drove up with "CNN" or "Reuters" on the top, they probably would have given an extra 5-10 seconds to re-evaluate the situation before assuming it was insurgents coming to take their wounded out of the area.
Anyway, I'm sorry for those who lost someone there:-( it's a sad story. But don't attack the soldiers trying to stay alive there. Attack the higher ups who are not training them, and are trying to cover up their mistakes instead of trying to prevent it from happening again.
I love my ASUS eee netbook... Sure it's small, but it's light weight and can take any windows program designed to run on a low to medium-end PC (i.e. NOT massive graphics design/high power rig program -- though I'm sure my eee would support Photoshop) Hell I can even play WOW on it -- granted I use an external mouse, and proper posture is still required just like a home PC (A friend of mine complained it was uncomfortable while playing with the laptop on his chest while he was lying on the couch)
Many netbooks do suck, Yes, I agree. But if you find the right one for you, it can be a great match. Most people here are techies so they know to avoid the scary spec'ed netbooks.
It may take longer to boot up, and use more power in standby, but I'd rather have my netbook next to me than an iPad... Hell I haven't even found a free solitaire/spider game for my iPhone that doesn't nag me with adverts and what not.
With a good firewall in the middle and no other computers on your network that are compromised, you can run without AV quiet safely..
Now I have a roommate that I would NOT recommend abandoning AV.... but even with him doing his downloading I very, very rarely run into virus issues (4 years clean now, actually)...
I've come to the conclusion that with proper preventative steps to lower your risk (i.e. not using IE, etc.), Flash/Adobe plugins disabled in Firefox unless I need them... Your risk of getting a virus is a LOT lower.
1) Download and visit only safe/trusted sites 2) Don't use Internet Explorer 3) Disable plugins for IE anyway, and disable firefox plugins unless needed 4) Don't use Outlook for e-mail 5) Always be behind a firewall, regardless of what the idiot from your ISP tells you to do to 6) A few other tips but are mostly common sense >.>
iSuppli reports the cost of the display modile is ESTIMATED at $60
I put estimated in capital letters as TFA I linked says its an estimate.
Anyway, Just throwing that out there for those curious about the cost breakdown
Slashdot Mirror
That would require they move away from their current setup that shifts away from 'inflating' your signal and 'inflating' apples awesomeness...
I think part of the issue is dB ranges of 0-~100 = 4-5 bars. dB Ranges 100-113 = zero-3 bars. You don't enter the '3' bar range until you're already on a weak signal, and can 'death grip' your phone to death. The article reported a max of ~24 dB signal drop from poor holding. From the looks you don't have to hold it too improperly to suddenly go 3 bars->disconnect.
This becomes an issue since people check their reception.. okay, 2-3 bars, im good... Then go make a call, or hold their phone to their head, and boom, 15dB difference, bye call.
The idea of "showing more bars to make users more comfortable" (or 'showing more bars to make people who think bars are standardized across phones think ours are better)... backfires when your 'bar' range doesn't properly tell people how close to disconnect they are and is 'mysteriously' goes from 3 bars to 0 -- like some people report.
been a long time, but back when I was building websites it was commonly stated that (as long as the website is in english/for english audiences), people attempt to read from top-left to bottom-right, just like a book... if you made a well designed menu you might channel their eyes more top-down along the left, if you don't, then they will start top-left but may read across....
.GIF that stripped too many colors from the pallet to reduce the file size... so my info's dated ;-p
At least, that's the natural tendency... annnddd most of the information I'm stating was from the time before Flash was on almost every website... The most 'active' distraction would be a multi-color flashing
Well, following in the "Title" of the "Tron Yamaha Honda Kawasaki Harley Suzuki Motorcycle," technically this bike would go next to your "Toyota Audi Ford Sony Harmen-Carmen Motorola bat mobile"
As soon as I saw the 'false advertising' I stopped caring about the cool factor, someone who needs to claim they have 7 manufacturers for their bike isn't getting my money, even if this was a scale 3-inch tall model for $50!
Sides, warranty claims on that would be horrible!
Another sad bit of information ---
/hug Slashdot Chicago server.... Way to deviate from the norm!! /hug
"Surfwhatever" program checks a pre-set list of 10 websites (microsoft.com, msn.com, go.com, apple.com, ebay.com, myspace.com)... All of which are (I checked most) california-based data/web centers.
Oh wait, Ebay came back as Denver! They should have better selected a list of web servers, (seriously, who goes to aol.com? and whats go.com?).. Looks like their list all favors California, as, I guess, the entirety of the internet exists solely in California and no where else in the world (or United States).
I actually signed up as First/Last Name "Unsolicited mail" with my mailing address set to the FTC Building in Washington DC. (To my knowledge, I was not given a check-box that allowed me to opt-out/in on communication)
Using my spam-catching e-mail address hosted by hotmail for all my "never check this address again" needs.
Yes, you can buy higher speed and thus invalidate the 'findings' of the article... Which is really just self-promotion with a fancy title to attract attention.
I was kinda disappointed that the article doesn't address maximum speed, or average speed amongst all "5mbps" connections, instead it lumps in DSL, Cable, and Fiber and says "HEY LoOk! Fiber is usually faster!!"
What this is really testing is "How much speed do Americans purchase, by region,"... it's just.. almost.. completely useless... except for a few statistical data points that are not frequently mentioned (broadband penetration by state).. We're comparing ISP by what the end-users paid for, as opposed to what end users CAN pay for (i.e. the limit of the technology)... or, as an alternative test, they could have tested Like-speed connections average performance across carriers, but instead they are grouping DSL, Fiber, and Cable..... and ignoring that some people pay $20 for internet while others want to pay $50 (for semi-basic home internet service) and claiming an ISP is "The best" because they have more users that spend more money on internet. (or they have less users but much higher speed to result in the same data skewing of results).
So yeah, Metrics, IMO, are mostly crap. And Mississippi can pull ahead of every state in this 'survey' simply by spending an extra $5... hell for $10 extra you can probably get speeds 5 times faster then most of the United States!
Yup,
If you're using another person, or entities, internet connection you are subject to the 'limits' their network enforces.
Without an agreement (i.e. public free WiFi) generally speaking you don't have a 'right' to require they provide SSL services. However, without an agreement signed by you (or agreed to as a "Click wrap" requirement website before internet is allowed)... They'd be hard pressed to be able to "Snoop" and record your data.
If you signed an agreement with the company/employer/place to gain access to their services, you have to accept their requirements, even if that includes "snooping" at least up to the point it violates a law.
But IANAL, I just feel from reading some peoples comments here that people expect their employer or free wifi location should provide SSL so they can bypass their company/employer/location's "Conditions of use" requirements and look at pr0n (or do whatever else) at McDonalds or work.
T-mobile call-in customer support is the best of all the big 4 -- And I've had them all, at the same time actually.
I worked for T-Mobile (Indirect) for just under a year, and then for Best buy Mobile (which in my area did Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T)
For the first year at BBM I had a line with all 4 carriers (Discounted, being a sales rep for all the companies) and I frequently called all 4 on a regular basis -- as some actions require you call in, including calling t-mobile when the customers had them and were switching.
My experience showed t-mobile had a consistently well trained staff of CSR's. The only problem with T-Mobile was coverage. Eventually I came to the conclusion that, if signal is fine where you use it, T-Mobile provided the best end-user experience especially when factoring in 'problems' that required customer service help.
Some common issues:
1. ~70% of T-Mobile standing stores are *NOT* Corporately owned by T-Mobile. A large percentage of AT&T And Sprint stores are NOT corporately owned. In these stores your experience will vary but T-Mobile offers their indirect dealers free training by their corporate staff. T-Mobile also is adamant about NOT SIGNING YOU UP if you have poor coverage.
2. T-Mobile's "Coverage map" is the most accurate of all 4 carriers. Verizons coverage map does not give you 'strong' 'moderate' 'weak'.. If you get 1/2 a bar (and thus frequently dropped calls) well.. your call connected, your covered! AT&T I'd put at 2nd best for coverage maps, but TMobile is far, far ahead in honesty here.
3. Customer service hates getting yelled at, avoid the yelling stage at least for 10-15 minutes
4. Sprint's Customer service generally is fairly good, if you can get one of them on the line, you're nice to the rep (after waiting 2-3 hours--though that's getting better), and you're not 'abusing' the system
5. If you buy from an indirect dealer, use them to make any changes for the next 6 months to help avoid breach of secondary contracts. Indirect dealers can frequently give you a better deal ONLY IF YOU COMMIT to features for 6 months. Otherwise the carrier revokes the commission they pay the indirect store and makes them pocket the loss for the phone at that point (so the indirect store *must* have a 2ndary contract to stay in business) -- same with ETF's.
6. Verizon has the "largest 3G network" but their technology limits their maximum speed to be about 60% of what AT&T & T-Mobile can get on 3G. If you have a "3.5g" (HSDPA+) AT&T or T-Mobile phone that variance grows even more -- Assuming you're (a) covered by t-mobile, and (b) not in New York on AT&T
Oh, final note, Verizon & Sprint Share towers, at least for basic calls
AT&T & T-Mobile share towers for basic calls
Make sure your roaming is enabled on your phone (sometimes the feature is well hidden since, obviously, carriers don't want you to roam). Data Services -- especially for at&t/t-mobile don't get shared at 3G speeds -- but are sharable at 2G speeds.
It's unfortunate, but... you cant expect people whom have been voted into office will allow others to more easily take their place. I'm glad the judicial system can edge in on the election system (within its limits)...
Though personally I don't think those whom are elected should be able to make/change laws about elections... but that would just make the system more complex and larger... So when the judicial system steps in and tries to keep things constitutionally in line I appreciate it.
Well if there is a law currently preventing unsolicited faxing, it would seem as though this 'targeted ads' idea with advert-replacement (with HP-desired advert) might work.
:-))... So what if this article (which I could claim copyright for) had advertisements inserted? Does that constitute alteration of copyrighted material by inserting new information (the advertisements)?
Though, If I had a web page there would be 2-3 issues I'd be concerned about:
1) Advert-replacement from my controlled advertisements (through keyword filtering) to adverts I have *no* control over. (What if it's a personal blog and I call John Doe a dick... when it goes to print they get __(take a guess)__ enlargement adverts that I, previously, blocked from showing.... now the printed copy of my website degrades in value to anyone that the printed version is shown to... not that a blog of my life would have advertisements, be read, or had paper wasted on it...
2) If it's a web page with no advertisements (for instance, a fun web page about me disassembling my printer -- which I have done for fun
3) Additional Ink/paper usage -- Do end users have a right to charge back HP/Yahoo for the ink & paper usage?
Just a quick scenario -- I recently printed out about 100 pages for my online course work. Each page I went in and 'Printed selection' and scaled it to maximize the space (minimize the paper used). If an advertisement was forced in after this preview forcing it to more pages, OR if I had no control over if the advert was in the print or not... Then my efforts to be semi-green (which really for me was a side effect of being efficient.. but same end result, just different names)...
Do I get to charge HP the penny? With the extra wasted pages I could fold the 'wasted' papers into a letter and an envelope (with a few staples) and send it to their office! (Well, once I have a claim that is more then the cost of the stamp).
Just my thoughts, overall I hate this idea. I think everyone has the right to control the information that is printed from their property (or "Licensed printers" -- added in case printers get a "end user license agreement" that strip your copyright protections too).. Last thing I want is all the HP printers in the school printing off advertisements that can't be (easily) controlled by a firewall or other web-filtering material -- and HP would probably get away with it for most automated services.
It is stupid, but true.
Took a bit, but the only source I could find to verify this was unfortunately wikipedia (whom got their values from what looks like a German magazine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understeer
Due to the technical nature of the information I'd probably accept that it is, in fact, true... Other then this small source of information I was unable to find an article about 'manufacturers designing cars to understeer.' I did notice a lot of people mentioning this fact, part of why I wanted to spend 5-10 minutes to try and find a source.
Not the US. Big corporations all have escapes from paying taxes... part of the reason we're in our mess with the deficit...
Company's have to "pay patent holders" (also owned by the ceo/corporation) in another country 100% of their profits in order to maintain use of the patents they developed in the US..... and 'sold' for pennies to their foreign side of the company
(If you missed it, 100% of profits is a variable amount meaning the US company makes no profit and avoids some taxes because of that, apparently)
I would assume it would be a clause to the effect of:
"If we see you do it again you will pay $______," which I do believe is enforceable by a judge & court as a result of a court case... (of course, needing another review/trial/something to prove)
but IANAL
Agreed,
This *sounds*, currently, to be a fair lawsuit. RIAA/MPAA typical ask for massive amounts of money for possessing a song (not necessarily distribution), such as $2,000/song you download or $25,000/album
Seems like this lawsuit is aiming for "Stop, we know who you are now, delete your copies, don't do it again... + court costs" if found guilty...
Sounds fair in my boat... if not being a little easy on the copyright violation for possession... I personally think they should tack on a little extra for the lost revenue -- say $40-100, a fair value for what they might get if the person watched it in the theaters (with a friend or two) and/or bought the dvd/blueray
I always discount scientific data/results not because of my own beliefs, but because I believe the scientists (or employers/funders) belief/goal is being pushed and it wasn't properly scientifically tested.
Many times we read stories here where one scientific study contradicts another scientific study.
GPL or not...
I would think it *very* difficult for the FSF to uphold GPL violation on the grounds of 'binary distributor' at least to the extent that apple pays any fine/penalty.
Unless the developer submitted to Apple the GPL Agreement, and apple signed off on or ignored the GPL and put it up anyway, I'm sure lawyers will get Apple off the hook...
If the developer striped GPL license information, or did not provide it to apple -- then how can Apple be held responsible for a GPL violation when they never agreed to it (except by proxy) -- and I'm sure something in their T&C protects them from developers imposing a 3rd parties contract on apple itself.
"Sorry, We are not required to tell you what laws you must abide by. We are only required to tell you which one's you've broken!"
Now get in the back of the car, sucker!
>.>
From what I am reading --
Article only states he refused to hand out the network admin passwords to a room and speakerphone full of people he felt were unqualified. There was no mention of who exactly wanted the passwords -- or if a follow-up attempt by 'a superior' was made while not on speakerphone. If he is in trouble for JUST the refusal to give the password out on speakerphone and in a room with a dozen people, I'd give him a pat on the back and a bonus for proper IT security.
When I was an IT assistant at a high school, I'd pull the same stunt if my boss (or the principle) asked me on speakerphone to give out the local admin passwords on the computers to a dozen people (Staff, teachers)...
Just like Terry (If i read correctly)... I'd be protecting the computers and the network security by withholding the admin passwords from people unqualified to have admin access without admin intelligence in the field (i.e. not sticky-noting the local computer password to the monitor on the computer for kids to see)
Already was hard enough keeping kids from installing kazaa and other security hazards without admin rights... give out the admin password to a dozen non-IT security-unaware people? yeah right....
One of terry's listeners probably would have put the admin password on a stickynote to his work and home computers..
Exactly...
A lot of people only have 1 Provider to choose from. In such cases the "Use a different provider" (or "Don't like it, dont use it") comments really do not work.
~7-8 years back I only had Cox Communications for internet speeds above dial-up. It was horrible. Terrible. Frightening. However, it was the only high speed choice.
For 2 Years I ran with a back up dial up connection to make sure I could still get online when service went out (which it frequently did from 5pm-9pm).
Thankfully, because I live outside DC, we eventually had new people move in and competition ensued. I swapped companies and had much better service (as in Internet service, not customer service -- i never had to call them!) and eventually FIOS moved in... I now have high quality reliable service.
When the monopoly existed it was crap. After the monopoly broke the service improved dramatically....
I'd say that's a win for consumers.
We can see it because we are looking for it.
There was no vocal ID that there were kids there until they were being carried. I don't even really recognize them as children in the low quality video (unless there's a giant arrow pointing to the window saying "LOOK CHILDREN HERE" and basically "WATCH THE USA KILL CHILDREN"
I've stated before in this Slashdot I agree it's horrible, but I can find little fault with the gunship so long as the gunship was told the group had weapons. Given a group with weapons there's a lot of supporting information that is visible (wide shoulder straps, the 'RPG' call there was a man on a knee pointing a thick black object up at the sky).
I don't like to fault front-line soldiers for what happens in a war (or ""Conflict"").
The real faults I see here are the politics of covering up, instead of working to make sure it doesn't happen again... Through training, changing rules, better verification before firing. It's sad that it happened, and I'm sorry for the reporters families... However, the soldiers want to make sure the buddies next to them get home alive, and they are told to follow the rules, orders, and 'suggestions' from higher ups to ensure that.
Why not give reporters a GPS (with ID) to identify where they are and plug that into their maps with troop locations.
- Only allow specific ID's
- If duplicates show up (spoofed) mark both groups as caution
- Require updates morning, mid-day, evening by reporters
- This lets 'eyes in the sky' get the information on reporter locations
Hindsight is 20/20.
I Agree this is a horrible act, but I also respect their side of it.
1) It is difficult to identify what is 'carried' -- Video shows at least 2 guys with shoulder-strapped blocks of black at their side.
2) We know it's cameras. The air crew may have been told the group had weapons (first minute of video hinted that the air crew was looking for the group -- so someone else must have seen it)
3) The RPG Call -- Just as it was called there was a man down on a knee with his camera up by his shoulder (or at least pointed at an upward angle from below).
So, gunship sees part of a black box sticking out from a corner pointed upwards... If I was told they have weapons, that's a fair call.
The van:
There was no markings on the van. Children are NOT very visible and never left the vehicle. To them it's as they called it and I agree.
That said, and as I said, this is horrible. The Cover-up is horrible. The deaths are horrible.
But there's also missing information from the video, which was edited to MAKE SURE YOU KNEW HOW HORRIBLE THE ARMY IS... Granted some of it historically may be true, but the setup and constant pop-ups -- if the 'children' pop up didn't come up I wouldn't have noticed it -- I was tracking the man moving, as I'm sure the gunship was, not looking in the window of the vehicle to see who's driving or passenger inside (no threat to 'my' safety at that point)
But again, hindsight....
The real story here is the cover up, and possibly needing to wear/identify yourself/your vehicles better. If that van drove up with "CNN" or "Reuters" on the top, they probably would have given an extra 5-10 seconds to re-evaluate the situation before assuming it was insurgents coming to take their wounded out of the area.
Anyway, I'm sorry for those who lost someone there :-( it's a sad story. But don't attack the soldiers trying to stay alive there. Attack the higher ups who are not training them, and are trying to cover up their mistakes instead of trying to prevent it from happening again.
I love my ASUS eee netbook...
Sure it's small, but it's light weight and can take any windows program designed to run on a low to medium-end PC (i.e. NOT massive graphics design/high power rig program -- though I'm sure my eee would support Photoshop)
Hell I can even play WOW on it -- granted I use an external mouse, and proper posture is still required just like a home PC (A friend of mine complained it was uncomfortable while playing with the laptop on his chest while he was lying on the couch)
Many netbooks do suck, Yes, I agree. But if you find the right one for you, it can be a great match. Most people here are techies so they know to avoid the scary spec'ed netbooks.
It may take longer to boot up, and use more power in standby, but I'd rather have my netbook next to me than an iPad... Hell I haven't even found a free solitaire/spider game for my iPhone that doesn't nag me with adverts and what not.
With a good firewall in the middle and no other computers on your network that are compromised, you can run without AV quiet safely..
Now I have a roommate that I would NOT recommend abandoning AV.... but even with him doing his downloading I very, very rarely run into virus issues (4 years clean now, actually)...
I've come to the conclusion that with proper preventative steps to lower your risk (i.e. not using IE, etc.), Flash/Adobe plugins disabled in Firefox unless I need them... Your risk of getting a virus is a LOT lower.
1) Download and visit only safe/trusted sites
2) Don't use Internet Explorer
3) Disable plugins for IE anyway, and disable firefox plugins unless needed
4) Don't use Outlook for e-mail
5) Always be behind a firewall, regardless of what the idiot from your ISP tells you to do to
6) A few other tips but are mostly common sense >.>
iSuppli reports the cost of the display modile is ESTIMATED at $60
I put estimated in capital letters as TFA I linked says its an estimate.
Anyway, Just throwing that out there for those curious about the cost breakdown
Was not meant to be flamebait.. i was actually interested due to my experiences with windows 7 dual-monitor setups..
i'm taking a course in UNIX this semester and was planning on doing a dual-monitor setup for a unix box for fun...
(and I do have an nVidia video card, referencing a reply to this post)