But I can not understand why I'm supposed to care about the minutiae of the inner workings of the behind-the-scenes operations of Google Wallet / Google Play.
You're supposed to care because Google wants Google Wallet to become your wallet.
is it possible that he's seen sealed testimony or other privileged information that could be damaging to Google, and would otherwise not be directly accessible to Microsoft?
No one said he was a on a personal cruisade against google just because he worked on that. he's a laywer and an expert in that domain.
Not a personal crusade, but surely he has inside knowledge the acquired while working for the FTC that Microsoft (and others) don't have access to. Well, Microsoft does now.
What about any legal proceeding? I'm sure that there are countless instances of published works used in legal proceedings that aren't copyright related. Do the lawyers need to pay royalties for those as well? What a racket!
Suspending production != Suspending sales. The two mean quite different things.
Very true. The sales number are low, and that's possible related to the cost of a Chevy Volt. I just did a quick search in my area and they're about $40,000. I'm never going to save $15k - $20k in gas over the life of the car, so buying a comparable car that runs on gasoline is probably a better value. There are some tax credits for buying an electric car, but even with those the price is still going to be far more than a "regular" car.
The situation we're considering is one where some advertising is shown to promote behaviours that are a public health problem.
Fat, cholesterol, processed foods, etc are all bad for people, and the overweight, obese and unhealthy bodies that result are a real public health problem. And I'm talking real obesity, but just the WHO & CDC telling me I'm classified as "overweight" because I'm 6' and weigh 185.
So how about a ban on ads showing people eating fast-food, fatty foods, junk food, etc? What about all that sugary cereal? It can't be good for junior, so maybe they shouldn't be able to show ads with kids eating it? <insert appropriate slippery slope meme here>
Cigarette advertising is a good precedent - it's illegal on TV, radio and billboards in the US, and in may other media in other places. If a behaviour has been shown to be a serious public health hazard, and is encouraged by certain forms of media, that media has been banned in the past.
Don't forget that alcohol commercials (in the US) cannot show someone actually drinking the product.
You're right, it doesn't. But, ignorance is a fact of life in many (if not most) areas of "technology". Don't know how to fix your own car so you got an expensive repair bill? Are you sure all those parts really needed to be replaced? How about fixing your own electric or plumbing or computer? Just because these are "physical" objects doesn't make it that different. If you knew how they worked you could (and hopefully would) make a more educated decision about them.
Yes, Google is trying to become 'Big Brother' without all those pesky restraints put upon governments by their citizens. The more information Google, Facebook, et al can harvest the more useful they become to other large entities. We're all ignorant of the true intent of these types of companies, but I'm pretty sure they intend to move "profit!" up to position #1 if at all possible.
And why did anyone tried to pass the idea that there is an international police body with global jurisdiction that is dedicated to attacking this elusive anonymous group?
Promoting the idea - or in this case fear - that there is an international anti-crime bogeyman who can come get you across borders? I guess it's the same as many other "for the good of the people" campaigns: If we help just one kid say "No" to Anonymous then it was worth it.
Fear of getting caught, and/or being punished, is a major deterrent to committing most types of crime. The more Anonymous related arrests the authorities claim to make the greater the deterrent to those who haven't decided to participate, or who are on the fence. Headlines are powerful (except, of course, most headlines on/.).
The deal with the old Cingular clients that came over was that they could keep unlimited data virtually forever. The trick is that you can never modify your plan with AT&T, or they'll stop you and say, "then you'll have to choose another plan". You can't add or remove tethering, etc.
Same thing for those of us with the unlimited AT&T plan.
As for the legal fees, I'm sure they use so many legal services for small things like this that they'd barely feel it unless a million people hit them... in which case you'd end up with a class action.
The 'contract' specifically excludes class action lawsuits.
If that's the case, perhaps there should be an "opt-out", where in the event the contract does change the consumer has the right to terminate the contract without fees if they so choose.
If you have the 'Unlimited' data plan your initial contract has already 'expired', but you'll lose the 'unlimited' part of it if you opt-out of your existing contract. O think it's better that AT&T have to be worried about these small, annoying lawsuits. It probably cost them more than the $850 settlement in legal fees.
Slashdot Mirror
They can rip each other to shreds if the mood takes them.
Not to mention the Rabbit of Caerbannog which has a vicious streak a mile wide.
Have a nice day :)
Stop tellin' me what to do! You ain't the boss of me!
But I can not understand why I'm supposed to care about the minutiae of the inner workings of the behind-the-scenes operations of Google Wallet / Google Play.
You're supposed to care because Google wants Google Wallet to become your wallet.
Grammar nuance. It raises a question; it doesn't beg a question. http://begthequestion.info/
I think begging is a perfectly cromulent way of questioning something ;-)
I thought the worst job in the world was digitally editing all of those pics of 'Octo-mom' so she only looked like she has 4 appendages instead of 8.
Can somebody explain to me what they mean by "not smart enough"?
is it possible that he's seen sealed testimony or other privileged information that could be damaging to Google, and would otherwise not be directly accessible to Microsoft?
Absolutely.
No one said he was a on a personal cruisade against google just because he worked on that. he's a laywer and an expert in that domain.
Not a personal crusade, but surely he has inside knowledge the acquired while working for the FTC that Microsoft (and others) don't have access to. Well, Microsoft does now.
I would be astonished if this isn't considered Fair Use.
I would think so too ... so how is submitting them as prior art to the patent office not fair use?
What about any legal proceeding? I'm sure that there are countless instances of published works used in legal proceedings that aren't copyright related. Do the lawyers need to pay royalties for those as well? What a racket!
Suspending production != Suspending sales. The two mean quite different things.
Very true. The sales number are low, and that's possible related to the cost of a Chevy Volt. I just did a quick search in my area and they're about $40,000. I'm never going to save $15k - $20k in gas over the life of the car, so buying a comparable car that runs on gasoline is probably a better value. There are some tax credits for buying an electric car, but even with those the price is still going to be far more than a "regular" car.
The situation we're considering is one where some advertising is shown to promote behaviours that are a public health problem.
Fat, cholesterol, processed foods, etc are all bad for people, and the overweight, obese and unhealthy bodies that result are a real public health problem. And I'm talking real obesity, but just the WHO & CDC telling me I'm classified as "overweight" because I'm 6' and weigh 185.
So how about a ban on ads showing people eating fast-food, fatty foods, junk food, etc? What about all that sugary cereal? It can't be good for junior, so maybe they shouldn't be able to show ads with kids eating it? <insert appropriate slippery slope meme here>
Cigarette advertising is a good precedent - it's illegal on TV, radio and billboards in the US, and in may other media in other places. If a behaviour has been shown to be a serious public health hazard, and is encouraged by certain forms of media, that media has been banned in the past.
Don't forget that alcohol commercials (in the US) cannot show someone actually drinking the product.
You'd have to settle for some kind of Surgeon General warning labels, like with cigarettes.
Where do I apply for the job of putting the Surgeon General warning labels on all those young, thin models?
You don't understand, what is going to become of all the contractors and tenders paid with the taxpayers' money?
Those people will all simply apply for a job at Google ;-)
ignorance never makes good justification.
You're right, it doesn't. But, ignorance is a fact of life in many (if not most) areas of "technology". Don't know how to fix your own car so you got an expensive repair bill? Are you sure all those parts really needed to be replaced? How about fixing your own electric or plumbing or computer? Just because these are "physical" objects doesn't make it that different. If you knew how they worked you could (and hopefully would) make a more educated decision about them.
Yes, Google is trying to become 'Big Brother' without all those pesky restraints put upon governments by their citizens. The more information Google, Facebook, et al can harvest the more useful they become to other large entities. We're all ignorant of the true intent of these types of companies, but I'm pretty sure they intend to move "profit!" up to position #1 if at all possible.
North Korea still the best Korea!
And why did anyone tried to pass the idea that there is an international police body with global jurisdiction that is dedicated to attacking this elusive anonymous group?
Promoting the idea - or in this case fear - that there is an international anti-crime bogeyman who can come get you across borders? I guess it's the same as many other "for the good of the people" campaigns: If we help just one kid say "No" to Anonymous then it was worth it.
/.).
Fear of getting caught, and/or being punished, is a major deterrent to committing most types of crime. The more Anonymous related arrests the authorities claim to make the greater the deterrent to those who haven't decided to participate, or who are on the fence. Headlines are powerful (except, of course, most headlines on
might have to get a blu ray player for this
Going where no DVD has gone before?
This has no place on /.
I second this motion. All in favor?
I think you forgot the link
Hmmm... I don't like Yahoo or Facebook.
I think I'll hate the patents themselves. Another ridiculous patent suit wasting the time and money of the courts.
Both. There's enough contempt and disdain to go around.
The French don't meth up their children.
They give them fine wine.
And that's why France is starting this "Surrender To Sobriety" program. It's going to be quite a dichotomy.
The deal with the old Cingular clients that came over was that they could keep unlimited data virtually forever. The trick is that you can never modify your plan with AT&T, or they'll stop you and say, "then you'll have to choose another plan". You can't add or remove tethering, etc.
Same thing for those of us with the unlimited AT&T plan.
As for the legal fees, I'm sure they use so many legal services for small things like this that they'd barely feel it unless a million people hit them... in which case you'd end up with a class action.
The 'contract' specifically excludes class action lawsuits.
If that's the case, perhaps there should be an "opt-out", where in the event the contract does change the consumer has the right to terminate the contract without fees if they so choose.
If you have the 'Unlimited' data plan your initial contract has already 'expired', but you'll lose the 'unlimited' part of it if you opt-out of your existing contract. O think it's better that AT&T have to be worried about these small, annoying lawsuits. It probably cost them more than the $850 settlement in legal fees.