they musta' confused morphine with something else... like, say PCP?
well i guess i wouldn't call that functioning "normally," but sherm users are known to jump out of 3rd story windows, breaking their legs as they hit the ground and yet continue running from the cops as if nothing had happened.
if you live in a more progressive area chances are you already have some form of public WiFi access. if you're a college student and are mainly going to be using your netbook on a campus with an open WiFi network, then you're already going to have free wireless internet access whenever you want. even if you don't live in a progressive area, chances are the places where you'll use a netbook: the library, coffee shop, home, work, school, etc. will probably have wireless internet access.
not to mention that public wireless access is gradually becoming a part of basic public infrastructure, and in the next few years more than more cities will start to roll out their own municipal WiFi/WiMax networks.
wireless data plans just aren't necessary for most people, especially with the extortionate rates most cellular carriers charge. unless you need mobile internet access for work, it just doesn't make sense to get a wireless data plan for your laptop or netbook when free wireless access is becoming more and more ubiquitous.
what does liability or support have to do with banning competing software?
are you saying that just because an application doesn't compete with one of Apple's native applications it won't cause any problems? or that just because Opera competes with Safari that Apple will be held responsible for problems with Opera?
that makes no sense whatsoever. the fact that all iPhone applications have to meet with their approval makes them more liable for damage done by these applications than if they let developers freely distribute their own software outside of the App Store. and prohibiting applications just because they compete your own software does not ensure a better user experience.
this has nothing to do with quality assurance. your grasping at straws to justify Apple's blatantly anti-competitive practices.
that's the carrier locking you in, not the handset manufacturer. this kind of blatantly anti-consumer policy may be routine in the cellular service industry, but Apple is setting a new precedent for it in the handset manufacturing industry. so now consumers have to put up with, not just being screwed over by their cell phone carrier, but also by their handset manufacturer? this seems like a new low in consumer rights/freedom. Apple seems bent on going in the exact opposite direction with the iPhone as Google is going with the Android platform.
hopefully with the rising popularity of municipal WiFi & WiMax, the growing movement behind open spectrums/networks, and the increased focus on wireless broadband technology, we'll eventually see closed/proprietary cellular networks replaced with VoIP over open wireless networks.
when ubiquitous open wifi access becomes a reality we'll start seeing wireless VoIP handsets replace conventional cell phones that have to be approved (and locked down) by cellular carriers. when that happens it'll only be handset makers who are able to deny users the freedom to install/run the applications that they want on their handsets. so if manufacturers go the Android route, users will have complete freedom & control over how they use their phones, whereas if Apple's attitude catches on user will be stuck in the same situation as before.
my dad has a similar problem with Go! Sudoku, which is published by Ubisoft.
the point of Sudoku, is to solve the numeric puzzle as fast as you can. the competitive element of the game is based entirely on how much time it takes you to complete the puzzle. however, Go! Sudoku comes with a serious glitch (at least the U.S. version does) that causes a "Please wait..." dialog to pop up randomly during the game. whenever that dialog pops up, it covers the entire puzzle board and basically locks you out of the game. it usually goes away by itself after 10-15 seconds, but it completely screws with your completion times. this is a fatal flaw in the software--which is otherwise quite good--that should have been caught by the developers before the game was released. but because of the lack of QC/QA by Ubisoft, their customers are left with a Sudoku puzzle game that is an utter waste of money.
worse yet, when this bug was reported to Ubisoft, they simply replied that users should keep their PSP charged beyond 75%, which has absolutely nothing to do with the bug as it happens even when the PSP is fully charged and still plugged into the wall. it seems that they refuse to even acknowledge that they made a mistake in releasing a faulty product. and since this game isn't expensive enough for anyone to sue them over it, and not popular enough to get any bad press, customers who've been screwed over just have to take it as they have no real recourse.
the funny thing is, I downloaded a pirated copy of the game and it seems to be much less buggy than my dad's legally purchased UMD. the attention dialog still pops up on occasion, but it does so much less often. so i would really advise other PSP owners to avoid this game if they can (get Carol Vorderman's Sudoku or any of the other Sudoku titles for the PSP), otherwise just pirate it off the internet lest you get fucked over as well.
just like people blame their internet slow down and disconnections on ISPs overselling far beyond their hardware capacity and creating unnecessary network overhead through the use of traffic monitoring/filtering & packet shaping technology?
the general public will think what the media tells them to think. assuming that Australian society has developed a culture of complacency similar to that of the U.S., if the Australian media can spin this issue the same way the U.S. media was able to spin the war on Iraq, or simply keep the issue out of the mainstream media (TV & newspapers), then ordinary people will probably just go along with it quietly--especially if their society is accustomed to discounting social & political activists, as anyone who tries to speak out against this government censorship will just be dismissed off hand by the general public.
maybe i'm wrong, and Australians are more receptive to the voice of reason than Americans are. but then again, a rational society would not be facing this dilemma, since they wouldn't put anyone in power who'd even be considering this kind of nationwide internet censorship. i mean, the Chinese at least have an excuse since they don't really elect their government officials. but Australia?
i guess fascist policies are contagious: U.S.-->Britain-->Australia-->???
i wonder if HTC has adopted a similar strategy. they used to use Windows Mobile exclusively for all of their handsets, but now that they're in the Open Handset Alliance and have produced the Dream/G1, does that mean they're going to be an all-android handset manufacturer, or are they still going to keep making Windows Mobile handsets?
i guess since Android is still a nascent and largely an untested platform, most OHA members probably aren't going to put all of their eggs in one basket just yet. but perhaps in a year or two, once Android has proven itself commercially, companies like Motorola will be more willing to commit themselves to the platform and drop Windows Mobile.
mini-USB connectors are definitely a huge plus. the last time i went to Best Buy was while accompanying a friend to get a data link cable for his phone (i forget which model it was), and after looking at 10-12 different link cables, we still couldn't find one that fit the proprietary data port on his phone. the closest thing we saw was an "All-in-One Cell Phone Data Transfer Suite" which came with 10 different cables for various brands of phones, but it cost something like $90.
there's absolutely no reason to use a proprietary connector for what is basically just a USB port. it would be so much easier, and more convenient, for consumers if all handset makers just used mini-USB connectors like everyone else. you don't see digital cameras or external hard drives coming with their own proprietary USB/FireWire ports. it's such a blatant attempt by handset makers to rip off their customers with overpriced data cables--which they usually have to buy separately in addition to requiring a different one for each handset.
i mean, if you wouldn't put up with this kind of scumbag business move with your external hard drive, digital cameras, or MP3 players, then why would you put up with it with your cell phone? heck, my PSP uses Sony's overpriced Memory Stick Pro Duo format instead of the more universal Micro SD format, but it still uses a standard mini-USB connector like pretty much all other portable devices.
we, the people of the night side of earth, object to the hotheaded policies of the day side government. despite all of your anti-nighttime propaganda, your DST ploy to temporally encroach on our borders is plain to see. thus you have broken the circadian treaty that has kept peace between our two nations. we will not stand for this diurnal threat to our coolheaded & peace-loving society.
we declare war on the heathen sun-worshipers to, once and for all, bring an end to their sidereal tyranny. the crepuscular revolution has begun!
for starters, Android is an open platform. Android dev kits are completely free (no developer program membership fee). and Google's distribution agreement, which is far less draconian, only applies if you want to distribute your application through Google. but developers are free to distribute their application themselves.
so soliciting consumer feedback and doing market research is now a form of corporate laziness?
what is wrong with a PC manufacturer trying to open a dialog with its consumer base? are you afraid that they're going to make a product that you actually like? you don't need to participate or even visit the site if you don't want to. but this gives others the opportunity to influence the direction of two of the biggest companies in the computer industry.
most people contributing to the site probably aren't ever going to have the chance to realize their PC designs on their own, much less bring it to market. so what do they have to lose by giving their ideas to ASUS/Intel? presumably, most of users of this site will be PC consumers who regularly purchase & use ASUS products. by getting users to contribute design ideas, ASUS/Intel can be more in tuned with the needs/wants of their customers. and by helping ASUS design products that better fit their needs, ASUS customers are more likely to be satisfied with their future purchases. it's a win-win situation.
and i don't see what this has to do with products being priced too high. companies will do that regardless of consumer input. and ASUS actually has very competitively priced consumer PCs.
don't know about the first one, but IBM seems to be meeting the last two requirements: -they're only asking that he refrain from working for Apple or another direct competitor for one year. -they offered to pay him a year's salary (on top of his default compensation package) in exchange for his abidance with the non-compete clause.
while i think that non-compete clauses definitely have some potential for abuse by employers, i don't think IBM is being that unreasonable in this instance.
that may be true in some cases, but given that "IBM offered to pay Mr. Papermaster one year's salary in exchange for Mr. Papermaster to respect his contractual obligation to refrain from working for an IBM competitor for one year," i don't think that's the case.
it seems to me like they just don't want to lose their trade secrets to their competitor. and in a hi-tech field like chip design, a year's lead on the competition would be very significant (or at the very least enough for the trade secrets held by a former employer to be no longer worth much to their competitors). it doesn't seem like they were trying to prevent their employee from negotiating better pay or even to prevent them from defecting to a competitor.
assuming that Apple wants this former IBM employee for his innate skills rather than just his knowledge of IBM's chip design or business strategy, then there's no reason why they can't wait a year to poach him. if i were in the employee's position, i'd just take the compensation bonus and go on a year's worth of paid leave.
yea, pretty much. btw, how's the quality of the wireless internet access you guys get? are you a student at one of the universities or just a local resident?
i expect most cities will have some sort of public wireless internet access in a couple of years. university towns tend to be more progressive, both culturally and technologically, so it'd make sense that they'd adopt municipal WiFi/WiMax before other cities, but there are already several non-college-town cities here in Southern California that have free public WiFi access. and the quality of service seems to be on par or better than the paid commercial WiFi hotspots at airports in most cases.
naturally municipal WiFi/WiMax deployment would be handled by the municipal government.
having an unlicensed white-space broadband spectrum simply allows wireless broadband equipment manufacturers to use the white-space spectrum, which is currently monopolized by TV broadcasters and the occasional wireless microphone user. opening up the white-space spectrum to a more broadly useful (and increasingly vital) application has nothing to do with making you pay for someone else's internet access.
regardless of how it's going to be implemented/funded, these wireless devices will need a radio frequency range to operate on. so maybe you should go back to worrying about someone driving on the roads you paid for, or your neighbor's kids using textbooks purchased with your tax dollars. public education has more to do with socialism than the white-space wireless debate.
mostly based on the fact that all of my cousins in Taiwan are either really crazy, or really boring. two of my cousin are always in and out of prison because of their drug problem, and possibly gang affiliations. a few others ran away from home when they were in their teens, and the one whom i'm still in contact with drinks a lot, does coke/ketamine/ecstasy/etc. (i know this because i partied with her that last time i visited Taiwan). and aside from maybe 1 cousin who's relatively normal and doesn't abuse any kind of substance, the rest all seem incredibly boring and somewhat socially maladjusted--one of whom i found out joined the Mormon church.
most of my cousins seem to fall into one extreme or the other. even most of my aunts and uncles are like that. it really is night and day when you compare one group with the other. i mean, i know tweakers, heroin addicts, gangbangers, convicted bank robbers, and all kinds of crazy people here in the U.S. too. but there's a much more even distribution across the entire breadth of the social spectrum here. and really the thing i can think of that accounts for this are the different cultural values and parenting styles.
i mean, there are strict/overbearing parents in the U.S. too. heck, i dated a girl whose parents were absolutely nuts and wouldn't let her date or even socialize with male friends, and she ended up being the biggest nympho i've ever met. similarly, there was this Korean kid from my home town who went to prison for killing his mom and his younger sibling. he basically just snapped because his parents were so strict and pushed him too hard. granted, that's an extreme case, but you can still see the general pattern that's emerging.
makes sense. that's why the most conservative/repressive cultures are also the most fucked up. i've noticed that extremely repressive Asian cultures like Taiwan and Japan tend to have very polarized populations, where most people are either complete prudes who lead unhealthy, overly sheltered lives devoid of any sort of pleasure, or they lead equally unhealthy lives partying way too much, with absolutely no sense of moderation or self-restraint.
when everything is taboo then there's no difference between having a few drink with your friends and getting completely shitfaced and coked out of your mind. so people end up either being a virgin their entire life, or become extremely promiscuous and have unprotected casual sex with random strangers.
it always seems kinda odd when major corporations that don't mind being unethical themselves when they can make a profit then turn around and try to force their sense of morality on others (e.g. censorship policies). i think companies like Sony, EA, Gamespot, etc. should focus more on correcting their own bad behaviors rather than trying to control the behavior of others. trampling on the rights of consumers, extorting your customers, and selling out your journalistic integrity to advertisers are not exactly shining examples of corporate responsibility.
it's especially annoying when major gaming sites have incompetently implemented profanity filters that prevent you from using ordinary words that happen to contain the same letter sequence as an "inappropriate word or phrase." i don't even bother posting reviews on Gamespot anymore because it's such a pain in the ass trying to figure out what word i used that triggered their profanity filter.
and then there are sites like IGN that have imbeciles for moderators, who think that homebrew/emulation/ripping CDs is illegal. if i want to rip one of my PSX games onto my hard drive and convert it into an eboot that i can play on my PSP that's my own prerogative. censoring posts that talk about homebrew/CFW/etc. is blatant posturing by the gaming industry to condition the public into thinking that only industry sanctioned uses of games/consoles are legal, and that using homebrew, CFW, etc. is illegal/unethical/taboo.
that makes more sense than the American film ratings board who worry more about kids/teenagers seeing nipples or other parts of the human body (even in non-sexual contexts) or hearing swear words but will still give movies depicting gun violence, murder, etc. PG or PG-13 ratings.
well, i think it makes sense to determine the USPTO's funding based on the volume of applications they receive/process, but they definitely shouldn't be making money based on how many patents they grant. that's a blatant conflict of interest. any money they make should go to the treasury, letting the OMB, CBO, or whoever is in ordinarily in charge of the federal budget decide how much money the USPTO should receive each fiscal year.
and there really ought to be some form of government or public oversight to watch for corruption in the patent approval process. if the USPTO is approving all patent applications and leaving it up to the courts to determine whether a patent infringement case is valid or not, then it'll just give major corporations like Microsoft or Apple bully smaller companies around using bogus patents. if the RIAA's crusade against music "piracy" has shown us anything, it's that our court system doesn't work. regardless of one's guilt or innocence, a well-funded corporate litigant can use the financial costs of a lengthy trial to bankrupt ordinary citizens, forcing the defendant to settle out of court even if the lawsuit is groundless.
free open public WiFi access is a lot more useful & convenient than having a bunch of closed commercial WiFi hotspots. it would open the door to a whole new range of wireless applications that simply can't be achieved using closed WiFi--especially at extortionate hourly rates they charge at places like airports and hotels.
things like carrier-less VoIP mobile phones, portable internet radios, or even internet-enabled smart vehicles that transmit/receive real-time traffic reports to help drivers avoid congested routes, etc. would not be possible without open public WiFi access. even if you could blanket a city with commercial WiFi hotspots you'd still have to pay a different access provider every time you moved, or you'd need to maintain 20 different subscriptions, and you'd still have to sign on again at each new hotspot, making applications that require ubiquitous WiFi access completely impractical.
more importantly, isn't this what free market capitalism is all about? being able to buy/sell whatever you want, turning a profit any way possible? it's a bit hypocritical to espouse free market policies when they benefit us but then denounce such actions when they are perceived as against our own interests.
frankly, i'd be all for the complete cessation of U.S. arms exports of any kind. we've caused enough harm by giving weapons to oppressive regimes like the Indonesians during the genocide in East Timor, or our continued support of Israel's occupation of the West Bank. but this is like going after some small time heroin dealers while continuing to let Big Pharma market their synthetic (and more potent) opiates that are just as dangerous, and that kill more people in many areas than illegal drugs do.
furthermore, it makes no sense to ban the export of encryption algorithms or non-weapon-related nuclear technology. scientific/technological progress doesn't occur in a vacuum. no matter which country a scientific discovery is made in, it is made on top of a foundation built by other scientists and thinkers that came before. the free exchange of information between individuals and cultures is what has propelled humanity from our primitive origins to the advanced societies that we have become. to deny others what we have benefited so greatly from is not only hypocritical and small, but it's incredibly selfish.
but regardless of what kind of policies we decide to adopt on the regulation of trade, at the very least we need to be self-consistent. we can't advocate free trade and a laissez-faire economy in one sphere, but then contradict ourselves in another. so if the neocons that make our foreign policy want to regulate what they consider "sensitive" exports, then maybe they should admit to themselves that the unbridled capitalism they tout as the solution to all social problems isn't such a sound philosophy after all.
Slashdot Mirror
and nipples--but only on women!
they musta' confused morphine with something else... like, say PCP?
well i guess i wouldn't call that functioning "normally," but sherm users are known to jump out of 3rd story windows, breaking their legs as they hit the ground and yet continue running from the cops as if nothing had happened.
50% of what land area? the entire earth?
if you live in a more progressive area chances are you already have some form of public WiFi access. if you're a college student and are mainly going to be using your netbook on a campus with an open WiFi network, then you're already going to have free wireless internet access whenever you want. even if you don't live in a progressive area, chances are the places where you'll use a netbook: the library, coffee shop, home, work, school, etc. will probably have wireless internet access.
not to mention that public wireless access is gradually becoming a part of basic public infrastructure, and in the next few years more than more cities will start to roll out their own municipal WiFi/WiMax networks.
wireless data plans just aren't necessary for most people, especially with the extortionate rates most cellular carriers charge. unless you need mobile internet access for work, it just doesn't make sense to get a wireless data plan for your laptop or netbook when free wireless access is becoming more and more ubiquitous.
what does liability or support have to do with banning competing software?
are you saying that just because an application doesn't compete with one of Apple's native applications it won't cause any problems? or that just because Opera competes with Safari that Apple will be held responsible for problems with Opera?
that makes no sense whatsoever. the fact that all iPhone applications have to meet with their approval makes them more liable for damage done by these applications than if they let developers freely distribute their own software outside of the App Store. and prohibiting applications just because they compete your own software does not ensure a better user experience.
this has nothing to do with quality assurance. your grasping at straws to justify Apple's blatantly anti-competitive practices.
that's the carrier locking you in, not the handset manufacturer. this kind of blatantly anti-consumer policy may be routine in the cellular service industry, but Apple is setting a new precedent for it in the handset manufacturing industry. so now consumers have to put up with, not just being screwed over by their cell phone carrier, but also by their handset manufacturer? this seems like a new low in consumer rights/freedom. Apple seems bent on going in the exact opposite direction with the iPhone as Google is going with the Android platform.
hopefully with the rising popularity of municipal WiFi & WiMax, the growing movement behind open spectrums/networks, and the increased focus on wireless broadband technology, we'll eventually see closed/proprietary cellular networks replaced with VoIP over open wireless networks.
when ubiquitous open wifi access becomes a reality we'll start seeing wireless VoIP handsets replace conventional cell phones that have to be approved (and locked down) by cellular carriers. when that happens it'll only be handset makers who are able to deny users the freedom to install/run the applications that they want on their handsets. so if manufacturers go the Android route, users will have complete freedom & control over how they use their phones, whereas if Apple's attitude catches on user will be stuck in the same situation as before.
my dad has a similar problem with Go! Sudoku, which is published by Ubisoft.
the point of Sudoku, is to solve the numeric puzzle as fast as you can. the competitive element of the game is based entirely on how much time it takes you to complete the puzzle. however, Go! Sudoku comes with a serious glitch (at least the U.S. version does) that causes a "Please wait..." dialog to pop up randomly during the game. whenever that dialog pops up, it covers the entire puzzle board and basically locks you out of the game. it usually goes away by itself after 10-15 seconds, but it completely screws with your completion times. this is a fatal flaw in the software--which is otherwise quite good--that should have been caught by the developers before the game was released. but because of the lack of QC/QA by Ubisoft, their customers are left with a Sudoku puzzle game that is an utter waste of money.
worse yet, when this bug was reported to Ubisoft, they simply replied that users should keep their PSP charged beyond 75%, which has absolutely nothing to do with the bug as it happens even when the PSP is fully charged and still plugged into the wall. it seems that they refuse to even acknowledge that they made a mistake in releasing a faulty product. and since this game isn't expensive enough for anyone to sue them over it, and not popular enough to get any bad press, customers who've been screwed over just have to take it as they have no real recourse.
the funny thing is, I downloaded a pirated copy of the game and it seems to be much less buggy than my dad's legally purchased UMD. the attention dialog still pops up on occasion, but it does so much less often. so i would really advise other PSP owners to avoid this game if they can (get Carol Vorderman's Sudoku or any of the other Sudoku titles for the PSP), otherwise just pirate it off the internet lest you get fucked over as well.
just like people blame their internet slow down and disconnections on ISPs overselling far beyond their hardware capacity and creating unnecessary network overhead through the use of traffic monitoring/filtering & packet shaping technology?
the general public will think what the media tells them to think. assuming that Australian society has developed a culture of complacency similar to that of the U.S., if the Australian media can spin this issue the same way the U.S. media was able to spin the war on Iraq, or simply keep the issue out of the mainstream media (TV & newspapers), then ordinary people will probably just go along with it quietly--especially if their society is accustomed to discounting social & political activists, as anyone who tries to speak out against this government censorship will just be dismissed off hand by the general public.
maybe i'm wrong, and Australians are more receptive to the voice of reason than Americans are. but then again, a rational society would not be facing this dilemma, since they wouldn't put anyone in power who'd even be considering this kind of nationwide internet censorship. i mean, the Chinese at least have an excuse since they don't really elect their government officials. but Australia?
i guess fascist policies are contagious: U.S.-->Britain-->Australia-->???
i wonder if HTC has adopted a similar strategy. they used to use Windows Mobile exclusively for all of their handsets, but now that they're in the Open Handset Alliance and have produced the Dream/G1, does that mean they're going to be an all-android handset manufacturer, or are they still going to keep making Windows Mobile handsets?
i guess since Android is still a nascent and largely an untested platform, most OHA members probably aren't going to put all of their eggs in one basket just yet. but perhaps in a year or two, once Android has proven itself commercially, companies like Motorola will be more willing to commit themselves to the platform and drop Windows Mobile.
mini-USB connectors are definitely a huge plus. the last time i went to Best Buy was while accompanying a friend to get a data link cable for his phone (i forget which model it was), and after looking at 10-12 different link cables, we still couldn't find one that fit the proprietary data port on his phone. the closest thing we saw was an "All-in-One Cell Phone Data Transfer Suite" which came with 10 different cables for various brands of phones, but it cost something like $90.
there's absolutely no reason to use a proprietary connector for what is basically just a USB port. it would be so much easier, and more convenient, for consumers if all handset makers just used mini-USB connectors like everyone else. you don't see digital cameras or external hard drives coming with their own proprietary USB/FireWire ports. it's such a blatant attempt by handset makers to rip off their customers with overpriced data cables--which they usually have to buy separately in addition to requiring a different one for each handset.
i mean, if you wouldn't put up with this kind of scumbag business move with your external hard drive, digital cameras, or MP3 players, then why would you put up with it with your cell phone? heck, my PSP uses Sony's overpriced Memory Stick Pro Duo format instead of the more universal Micro SD format, but it still uses a standard mini-USB connector like pretty much all other portable devices.
we, the people of the night side of earth, object to the hotheaded policies of the day side government. despite all of your anti-nighttime propaganda, your DST ploy to temporally encroach on our borders is plain to see. thus you have broken the circadian treaty that has kept peace between our two nations. we will not stand for this diurnal threat to our coolheaded & peace-loving society.
we declare war on the heathen sun-worshipers to, once and for all, bring an end to their sidereal tyranny. the crepuscular revolution has begun!
ironically, IBM is the one who did business with the Nazis during WWII.
for starters, Android is an open platform. Android dev kits are completely free (no developer program membership fee). and Google's distribution agreement, which is far less draconian, only applies if you want to distribute your application through Google. but developers are free to distribute their application themselves.
so soliciting consumer feedback and doing market research is now a form of corporate laziness?
what is wrong with a PC manufacturer trying to open a dialog with its consumer base? are you afraid that they're going to make a product that you actually like? you don't need to participate or even visit the site if you don't want to. but this gives others the opportunity to influence the direction of two of the biggest companies in the computer industry.
most people contributing to the site probably aren't ever going to have the chance to realize their PC designs on their own, much less bring it to market. so what do they have to lose by giving their ideas to ASUS/Intel? presumably, most of users of this site will be PC consumers who regularly purchase & use ASUS products. by getting users to contribute design ideas, ASUS/Intel can be more in tuned with the needs/wants of their customers. and by helping ASUS design products that better fit their needs, ASUS customers are more likely to be satisfied with their future purchases. it's a win-win situation.
and i don't see what this has to do with products being priced too high. companies will do that regardless of consumer input. and ASUS actually has very competitively priced consumer PCs.
don't know about the first one, but IBM seems to be meeting the last two requirements:
-they're only asking that he refrain from working for Apple or another direct competitor for one year.
-they offered to pay him a year's salary (on top of his default compensation package) in exchange for his abidance with the non-compete clause.
while i think that non-compete clauses definitely have some potential for abuse by employers, i don't think IBM is being that unreasonable in this instance.
that may be true in some cases, but given that "IBM offered to pay Mr. Papermaster one year's salary in exchange for Mr. Papermaster to respect his contractual obligation to refrain from working for an IBM competitor for one year," i don't think that's the case.
it seems to me like they just don't want to lose their trade secrets to their competitor. and in a hi-tech field like chip design, a year's lead on the competition would be very significant (or at the very least enough for the trade secrets held by a former employer to be no longer worth much to their competitors). it doesn't seem like they were trying to prevent their employee from negotiating better pay or even to prevent them from defecting to a competitor.
assuming that Apple wants this former IBM employee for his innate skills rather than just his knowledge of IBM's chip design or business strategy, then there's no reason why they can't wait a year to poach him. if i were in the employee's position, i'd just take the compensation bonus and go on a year's worth of paid leave.
yea, pretty much. btw, how's the quality of the wireless internet access you guys get? are you a student at one of the universities or just a local resident?
i expect most cities will have some sort of public wireless internet access in a couple of years. university towns tend to be more progressive, both culturally and technologically, so it'd make sense that they'd adopt municipal WiFi/WiMax before other cities, but there are already several non-college-town cities here in Southern California that have free public WiFi access. and the quality of service seems to be on par or better than the paid commercial WiFi hotspots at airports in most cases.
naturally municipal WiFi/WiMax deployment would be handled by the municipal government.
having an unlicensed white-space broadband spectrum simply allows wireless broadband equipment manufacturers to use the white-space spectrum, which is currently monopolized by TV broadcasters and the occasional wireless microphone user. opening up the white-space spectrum to a more broadly useful (and increasingly vital) application has nothing to do with making you pay for someone else's internet access.
regardless of how it's going to be implemented/funded, these wireless devices will need a radio frequency range to operate on. so maybe you should go back to worrying about someone driving on the roads you paid for, or your neighbor's kids using textbooks purchased with your tax dollars. public education has more to do with socialism than the white-space wireless debate.
mostly based on the fact that all of my cousins in Taiwan are either really crazy, or really boring. two of my cousin are always in and out of prison because of their drug problem, and possibly gang affiliations. a few others ran away from home when they were in their teens, and the one whom i'm still in contact with drinks a lot, does coke/ketamine/ecstasy/etc. (i know this because i partied with her that last time i visited Taiwan). and aside from maybe 1 cousin who's relatively normal and doesn't abuse any kind of substance, the rest all seem incredibly boring and somewhat socially maladjusted--one of whom i found out joined the Mormon church.
most of my cousins seem to fall into one extreme or the other. even most of my aunts and uncles are like that. it really is night and day when you compare one group with the other. i mean, i know tweakers, heroin addicts, gangbangers, convicted bank robbers, and all kinds of crazy people here in the U.S. too. but there's a much more even distribution across the entire breadth of the social spectrum here. and really the thing i can think of that accounts for this are the different cultural values and parenting styles.
i mean, there are strict/overbearing parents in the U.S. too. heck, i dated a girl whose parents were absolutely nuts and wouldn't let her date or even socialize with male friends, and she ended up being the biggest nympho i've ever met. similarly, there was this Korean kid from my home town who went to prison for killing his mom and his younger sibling. he basically just snapped because his parents were so strict and pushed him too hard. granted, that's an extreme case, but you can still see the general pattern that's emerging.
makes sense. that's why the most conservative/repressive cultures are also the most fucked up. i've noticed that extremely repressive Asian cultures like Taiwan and Japan tend to have very polarized populations, where most people are either complete prudes who lead unhealthy, overly sheltered lives devoid of any sort of pleasure, or they lead equally unhealthy lives partying way too much, with absolutely no sense of moderation or self-restraint.
when everything is taboo then there's no difference between having a few drink with your friends and getting completely shitfaced and coked out of your mind. so people end up either being a virgin their entire life, or become extremely promiscuous and have unprotected casual sex with random strangers.
it always seems kinda odd when major corporations that don't mind being unethical themselves when they can make a profit then turn around and try to force their sense of morality on others (e.g. censorship policies). i think companies like Sony, EA, Gamespot, etc. should focus more on correcting their own bad behaviors rather than trying to control the behavior of others. trampling on the rights of consumers, extorting your customers, and selling out your journalistic integrity to advertisers are not exactly shining examples of corporate responsibility.
it's especially annoying when major gaming sites have incompetently implemented profanity filters that prevent you from using ordinary words that happen to contain the same letter sequence as an "inappropriate word or phrase." i don't even bother posting reviews on Gamespot anymore because it's such a pain in the ass trying to figure out what word i used that triggered their profanity filter.
and then there are sites like IGN that have imbeciles for moderators, who think that homebrew/emulation/ripping CDs is illegal. if i want to rip one of my PSX games onto my hard drive and convert it into an eboot that i can play on my PSP that's my own prerogative. censoring posts that talk about homebrew/CFW/etc. is blatant posturing by the gaming industry to condition the public into thinking that only industry sanctioned uses of games/consoles are legal, and that using homebrew, CFW, etc. is illegal/unethical/taboo.
that makes more sense than the American film ratings board who worry more about kids/teenagers seeing nipples or other parts of the human body (even in non-sexual contexts) or hearing swear words but will still give movies depicting gun violence, murder, etc. PG or PG-13 ratings.
well, i think it makes sense to determine the USPTO's funding based on the volume of applications they receive/process, but they definitely shouldn't be making money based on how many patents they grant. that's a blatant conflict of interest. any money they make should go to the treasury, letting the OMB, CBO, or whoever is in ordinarily in charge of the federal budget decide how much money the USPTO should receive each fiscal year.
and there really ought to be some form of government or public oversight to watch for corruption in the patent approval process. if the USPTO is approving all patent applications and leaving it up to the courts to determine whether a patent infringement case is valid or not, then it'll just give major corporations like Microsoft or Apple bully smaller companies around using bogus patents. if the RIAA's crusade against music "piracy" has shown us anything, it's that our court system doesn't work. regardless of one's guilt or innocence, a well-funded corporate litigant can use the financial costs of a lengthy trial to bankrupt ordinary citizens, forcing the defendant to settle out of court even if the lawsuit is groundless.
municipal WiFi/WiMax.
free open public WiFi access is a lot more useful & convenient than having a bunch of closed commercial WiFi hotspots. it would open the door to a whole new range of wireless applications that simply can't be achieved using closed WiFi--especially at extortionate hourly rates they charge at places like airports and hotels.
things like carrier-less VoIP mobile phones, portable internet radios, or even internet-enabled smart vehicles that transmit/receive real-time traffic reports to help drivers avoid congested routes, etc. would not be possible without open public WiFi access. even if you could blanket a city with commercial WiFi hotspots you'd still have to pay a different access provider every time you moved, or you'd need to maintain 20 different subscriptions, and you'd still have to sign on again at each new hotspot, making applications that require ubiquitous WiFi access completely impractical.
maybe they were importing 10,000 Casio watches and 10 kilotons of fertilizer?
more importantly, isn't this what free market capitalism is all about? being able to buy/sell whatever you want, turning a profit any way possible? it's a bit hypocritical to espouse free market policies when they benefit us but then denounce such actions when they are perceived as against our own interests.
frankly, i'd be all for the complete cessation of U.S. arms exports of any kind. we've caused enough harm by giving weapons to oppressive regimes like the Indonesians during the genocide in East Timor, or our continued support of Israel's occupation of the West Bank. but this is like going after some small time heroin dealers while continuing to let Big Pharma market their synthetic (and more potent) opiates that are just as dangerous, and that kill more people in many areas than illegal drugs do.
furthermore, it makes no sense to ban the export of encryption algorithms or non-weapon-related nuclear technology. scientific/technological progress doesn't occur in a vacuum. no matter which country a scientific discovery is made in, it is made on top of a foundation built by other scientists and thinkers that came before. the free exchange of information between individuals and cultures is what has propelled humanity from our primitive origins to the advanced societies that we have become. to deny others what we have benefited so greatly from is not only hypocritical and small, but it's incredibly selfish.
but regardless of what kind of policies we decide to adopt on the regulation of trade, at the very least we need to be self-consistent. we can't advocate free trade and a laissez-faire economy in one sphere, but then contradict ourselves in another. so if the neocons that make our foreign policy want to regulate what they consider "sensitive" exports, then maybe they should admit to themselves that the unbridled capitalism they tout as the solution to all social problems isn't such a sound philosophy after all.