1. Nobody paid for this program. 2. This program did not work as advertised (and apparently didn't do anything) 3. This was not removed for editorial reasons.
And I have no objections over Apple removing programs either, provided they're doing it for security reasons, not because they don't agree with the content. (For example, people who installed PDANet still have it, even though it's no longer in the app store. If Apple started nuking that from handsets, I'd have a problem.)
Who cares, that's after the fact. They should NOT have the ability, the "agreement" should be changed right now, and the next version of Android should have this censor ability removed.
I CARE. I want that ability there. If an app has the potential to harm me or my family financially or damage my phone, I want it gone.
If Google only warned people, How many people would not get the warning until it's too late? How many would even do anything about it. Heck, one person I know didn't even realize what the notification bar WAS, and he had 20 app updates to install after I showed him.
I wouldn't mind seeing a configurable option, but I like that Google (and Apple, for that matter) can catch malicious programs before they harm a bunch of people.
Remember, using your phone costs money. There are at least 3 ways I could directly cost you thousands of dollars with an application: I can make phone calls. I can use tons of data. I can send out text messages. If I had to choose between the current system and no protection at all, I'll take the current system.
No, they deleted it FROM MY TELEPHONE. Not stopped selling it in their store, not rejected it in the review process, not sent me an email telling me that there was something wrong with the app and maybe I might want to delete it. THEY DELETED IT FROM MY TELEPHONE.
Without asking me.
I thought I could run any app I wanted? That is what you people told me.
You're such a troll. Nobody deleted anything from your phone, since you're still running around with your iPhone 3G, mad that you can't get backgrounds and multitasking.
Quite frankly, neither do I. I said up front, that I don't agree with much of what's in the current copyright law. I think terms are WAY too long, and I think the anti-circumvention provision in the DMCA is ridiculous: the fact that it directly contravenes our fair use rights should be reason enough to nullify it.
But it's clear that Congress has the right to regulate Copyright. And that's what they've done. Do I like it? No. But until we get a Federal Initiative process, we have no way of directly affecting those decisions.
What can we do? I think we should start a write-in campaign to tell Congress to return the Copyright term to 50 years. I think we should revoke the DRM portions of the DMCA. We should demand that the law stop treating honest users of Copyright as criminals.
My guess is that people were just getting used the idea of copyright and owning "content". Everyone knew what a war was and how it works, but the idea of owning words must have been pretty new to some of the men attending the the Constitutional Convention. The first copyright law has passed in England less than a century before, and I'm sure that before that, people had a very liberal attitude toward copying works, and so the explanation was rather long because it had to be, not because copyright protection was somehow "special". (I'd argue that the free exercise of religion, speech, and the right to bear arms is more important in the grand scheme of things, but those got relegated to amendments, rather than part of the core document.)
Regardless, that's an awful lot to read in to one sentence fragment.
The article is simply the wide-eyed rantings of someone who has never studied history or law and yet refuses to admit they might not know everything.
Well, that explains what it's doing here!:)
For anyone who's been following the WikiLeaks drama, it's painfully obvious that the government can and does exercise the right to control free speech when they need to. I can go to jail for publishing classified data, and I can't imagine that anyone would try to defend me by claiming I have the right to free speech.
And that doesn't begin to address the number of Federal, state and local laws governing obscenity and liability. The First Amendment won't protect me if I moon America on broadcast television while telling the USA to go **** themselves.
Of course, that kind of "I wear a tin-foil hat to keep the [ government | aliens | communists ] from reading my mind" insanity is probably the biggest reason I read the comments here. It's so much fun to see what people have to say on something they really don't know the first thing about.:-)
You're the one being absurd.
We weren't talking about Shakespeare in the park. We were talking about First Amendment vs. Copyright. The Constitution does direct Congress to create a copyright law (explicitly making Copyright a Federal issue), but it does not state the form or manner of Copyright protection.
So there's no way that an extension of the term of Copyright can be interpreted as a First Amendment issue.
People claim this is a First Amendment issue, but I can't see how. Free Speech isn't about publishing other people's works; it's about protecting people's right to disagree with the government.
More to the point, though: Copyright law is not part of the Constitution, so Congress has every right to change it as they see fit.
I don't like it. I don't like how Copyright has become a way to protect big companies at the expense of the little guy. But I can't see any way to interpret the First Amendment so that it conflicts with Copyright and Congress's right to extend it.
Who says you have to negate inertia? You could go the other way and increase the inertia of the thruster, providing a higher impulse per gram of propellant consumed.
Well, that's the trouble when you start messing with the laws of physics: once you change one thing (such as being able to change an object's inertia at will), you find that a dozen other "universal" laws don't work any more.
As someone else here already pointed out: if you could alter gravatic mass at will, you'd end up with a perpetual motion machine. Make half of your rotor heavier than the other half, and it'll spin. Now adjust the gravatic mass of part of the object as it passes the vertical plane, and you've got a perpetual motion machine.
My guess is that if you could do that, there'd be a tradeoff somewhere else: possibly that the kinetic energy added to the wheel would be stolen from the rotation of the Earth itself.
You may be correct about what scientists think they are are saying, but it rarely comes out that way. A physicist may say something like "FTL drive is impossible," and he may be thinking, at least until someone discovers a way to transform the underlying space-time matrix, but what people hear is "That's the final word, and it will never change."
If the "until someone discovers differently" qualifier went without saying, people wouldn't be starting these ridiculous movements like "Mundane Science Fiction."
No kidding... this would be the first step toward gravity control and drive systems based on inertial control.
Imagine if you could lift an aircraft carrier sized ship in to space with nearly no energy, then accelerate to.999 light speed with no more thrust than a model rocket.
What amuses me is how scientists say "this stuff is impossible", and not long later, someone comes along and says "Hey... here's some evidence that it is possible."
Russia now only has the only launch vehicle capable of reaching the ISS.
Japan has returned from an asteroid with a sample and launched the first solar sail.
For some reason, America let the momentum stop after landing on the moon, and we can't seem to get it back.
I think a big part of this is that NASA hasn't properly conveyed the importance of space travel to the public. When people say insane things like "We should spend those billions on Earth", they miss the big picture: that the Earth is limited. Our resources are finite, and eventually, we will use everything that can't be recycled, re-mined, and re-used.
What happens when we pump the last barrel of crude oil? What happens when we run out of some rare metal? Our very lives are now dependent on technology that cannot continue to exist if we do not find new sources of materials, energy, and simple room to grow.
Sure, the problem is 50 or 100 years down the road, but that future is rushing down on us fast. It's already been 50 years since we first achieved orbital flight; if we allow another 50 years to pass before we start working on the problem, it'll be too late.
You made a mistake there, and if you think about it, I'll bet you can figure out what it is...... a big B is for Bytes and a little b is for bits. 83MB is not 84992kb. 83MB 84,992KB or 6,804,008kb. Things also get complicated because people don't distinguish between binary thousands (2^10, or 1024) or decimal thousands (1000), and we don't know if the guy is talking about payload data or network data. Typically, data rates over a network are specified in bits per second of network data. Once you expand that out, you will find that the bits travelling over the wire contain framing bits, and then the network packet themselves contain message and routing data... so when you're all done, one byte of payload data (the stuff you actaully USE) is more than 8 bits of network data. But to make things simple, I'll stick with 8 bits to a byte.
So let's review: 65 gigabytes per month / 30 days = 2.167 gigabytes per day = 2167 megabytes per day. 2167 megabytes per day / 24 hours = 90.291 megabytes per hour = 90291 kilobytes per hour 90291 kilobytes per hour / 60 minutes = 1504 kilobytes per minute 1504 kilobytes per minute / 60 seconds = 25 kilobytes per second. 25 kilobytes per second * 8 = 200 kilobits per second
I don't know exactly what kind of data rates Orange actually supports, so at this point, I couldn't say whether this truly represents 24x7 torrent usage or not... but it still seems extreme, and it's obviously people who don't have landline broadband connections.
But like I said, cutting people down to 1GB per month is also extreme. It's pretty obvious that this is either a profit-making move or a plan designed to keep telcos happy by inflating cellular data prices enough that people have an incentive to keep their home and office broadband connections.
I have no idea what O2's data transfer speeds are like, but look at the numbers: 65GB/month is roughly 2GB/day 2GB/day is roughly 83MB/hour 83MB/hour is roughly 230Kbit/sec.
This means that a few thousand customers are using their data connection 24/7 at an average rate of 230kbit/sec, or 8 hours a day at a rate of around 700kb/sec.
Yes, that's excessive.
But based on those numbers, you could bounce past 1GB in one day. Where is the balance here?
Slashdot Mirror
No.
1. Nobody paid for this program.
2. This program did not work as advertised (and apparently didn't do anything)
3. This was not removed for editorial reasons.
And I have no objections over Apple removing programs either, provided they're doing it for security reasons, not because they don't agree with the content. (For example, people who installed PDANet still have it, even though it's no longer in the app store. If Apple started nuking that from handsets, I'd have a problem.)
Then someone didn't read his TOS when he accepted the terms to the app market. :-)
I CARE. I want that ability there. If an app has the potential to harm me or my family financially or damage my phone, I want it gone.
If Google only warned people, How many people would not get the warning until it's too late? How many would even do anything about it. Heck, one person I know didn't even realize what the notification bar WAS, and he had 20 app updates to install after I showed him.
I wouldn't mind seeing a configurable option, but I like that Google (and Apple, for that matter) can catch malicious programs before they harm a bunch of people.
Remember, using your phone costs money. There are at least 3 ways I could directly cost you thousands of dollars with an application: I can make phone calls. I can use tons of data. I can send out text messages. If I had to choose between the current system and no protection at all, I'll take the current system.
So do this:
back up all the apps you install (very easy with Appmonster or something similar.)
When Google removes something, just re-install it from your backup.
And oh yeah, make sure you're willing to pay the bill or face the legal consequences when it does something nasty like run up a huge phone bill.
When some app comes along that sends out a million texts and runs up a $10,000 phone bill, I'm sure you'll be back in here, screaming about that.
You can't have it both ways, cowboy.
You're such a troll. Nobody deleted anything from your phone, since you're still running around with your iPhone 3G, mad that you can't get backgrounds and multitasking.
Quite frankly, neither do I. I said up front, that I don't agree with much of what's in the current copyright law. I think terms are WAY too long, and I think the anti-circumvention provision in the DMCA is ridiculous: the fact that it directly contravenes our fair use rights should be reason enough to nullify it. But it's clear that Congress has the right to regulate Copyright. And that's what they've done. Do I like it? No. But until we get a Federal Initiative process, we have no way of directly affecting those decisions. What can we do? I think we should start a write-in campaign to tell Congress to return the Copyright term to 50 years. I think we should revoke the DRM portions of the DMCA. We should demand that the law stop treating honest users of Copyright as criminals.
My guess is that people were just getting used the idea of copyright and owning "content". Everyone knew what a war was and how it works, but the idea of owning words must have been pretty new to some of the men attending the the Constitutional Convention. The first copyright law has passed in England less than a century before, and I'm sure that before that, people had a very liberal attitude toward copying works, and so the explanation was rather long because it had to be, not because copyright protection was somehow "special". (I'd argue that the free exercise of religion, speech, and the right to bear arms is more important in the grand scheme of things, but those got relegated to amendments, rather than part of the core document.) Regardless, that's an awful lot to read in to one sentence fragment.
Yeah, you got me there. It's pretty clear that the original intent of Copyright was to let things fall in to the public domain after a time.
Well, that explains what it's doing here! :)
For anyone who's been following the WikiLeaks drama, it's painfully obvious that the government can and does exercise the right to control free speech when they need to. I can go to jail for publishing classified data, and I can't imagine that anyone would try to defend me by claiming I have the right to free speech.
And that doesn't begin to address the number of Federal, state and local laws governing obscenity and liability. The First Amendment won't protect me if I moon America on broadcast television while telling the USA to go **** themselves.
Of course, that kind of "I wear a tin-foil hat to keep the [ government | aliens | communists ] from reading my mind" insanity is probably the biggest reason I read the comments here. It's so much fun to see what people have to say on something they really don't know the first thing about. :-)
You're the one being absurd. We weren't talking about Shakespeare in the park. We were talking about First Amendment vs. Copyright. The Constitution does direct Congress to create a copyright law (explicitly making Copyright a Federal issue), but it does not state the form or manner of Copyright protection. So there's no way that an extension of the term of Copyright can be interpreted as a First Amendment issue.
Is the profanity necessary?
RTFC. The Copyright clause directs Congress to create a system of Copyright. It doesn't say how.
I think you nailed it.
People claim this is a First Amendment issue, but I can't see how. Free Speech isn't about publishing other people's works; it's about protecting people's right to disagree with the government.
More to the point, though: Copyright law is not part of the Constitution, so Congress has every right to change it as they see fit.
I don't like it. I don't like how Copyright has become a way to protect big companies at the expense of the little guy. But I can't see any way to interpret the First Amendment so that it conflicts with Copyright and Congress's right to extend it.
Darnit, I didn't mean RTF. I meant PDF. :-)
Although, RTF's work too, as long as a good word processor is installed.
I wouldn't use the browser for printing. I would render the document to an RTF on the server, then hand it over to the client for printing.
Who says you have to negate inertia? You could go the other way and increase the inertia of the thruster, providing a higher impulse per gram of propellant consumed.
Well, that's the trouble when you start messing with the laws of physics: once you change one thing (such as being able to change an object's inertia at will), you find that a dozen other "universal" laws don't work any more. As someone else here already pointed out: if you could alter gravatic mass at will, you'd end up with a perpetual motion machine. Make half of your rotor heavier than the other half, and it'll spin. Now adjust the gravatic mass of part of the object as it passes the vertical plane, and you've got a perpetual motion machine. My guess is that if you could do that, there'd be a tradeoff somewhere else: possibly that the kinetic energy added to the wheel would be stolen from the rotation of the Earth itself.
You may be correct about what scientists think they are are saying, but it rarely comes out that way. A physicist may say something like "FTL drive is impossible," and he may be thinking, at least until someone discovers a way to transform the underlying space-time matrix, but what people hear is "That's the final word, and it will never change."
If the "until someone discovers differently" qualifier went without saying, people wouldn't be starting these ridiculous movements like "Mundane Science Fiction."
No kidding... this would be the first step toward gravity control and drive systems based on inertial control.
Imagine if you could lift an aircraft carrier sized ship in to space with nearly no energy, then accelerate to .999 light speed with no more thrust than a model rocket.
What amuses me is how scientists say "this stuff is impossible", and not long later, someone comes along and says "Hey... here's some evidence that it is possible."
Russia now only has the only launch vehicle capable of reaching the ISS.
Japan has returned from an asteroid with a sample and launched the first solar sail.
For some reason, America let the momentum stop after landing on the moon, and we can't seem to get it back.
I think a big part of this is that NASA hasn't properly conveyed the importance of space travel to the public. When people say insane things like "We should spend those billions on Earth", they miss the big picture: that the Earth is limited. Our resources are finite, and eventually, we will use everything that can't be recycled, re-mined, and re-used.
What happens when we pump the last barrel of crude oil? What happens when we run out of some rare metal? Our very lives are now dependent on technology that cannot continue to exist if we do not find new sources of materials, energy, and simple room to grow.
Sure, the problem is 50 or 100 years down the road, but that future is rushing down on us fast. It's already been 50 years since we first achieved orbital flight; if we allow another 50 years to pass before we start working on the problem, it'll be too late.
I'm just trying to figure out where the two words "web site" got concatenated in to one word. To me, it's as bad as "alot".
Heck, I'm still annoyed at "website". When did those two words merge?
I think those heavy users are running cellular modems, not using data on their phones...
But for comparison, if you ran all-out for a month (at 50kb/s), you could probably pull 16GB. But that would probably burn out your phone. :-)
You made a mistake there, and if you think about it, I'll bet you can figure out what it is... ... a big B is for Bytes and a little b is for bits. 83MB is not 84992kb. 83MB 84,992KB or 6,804,008kb. Things also get complicated because people don't distinguish between binary thousands (2^10, or 1024) or decimal thousands (1000), and we don't know if the guy is talking about payload data or network data. Typically, data rates over a network are specified in bits per second of network data. Once you expand that out, you will find that the bits travelling over the wire contain framing bits, and then the network packet themselves contain message and routing data... so when you're all done, one byte of payload data (the stuff you actaully USE) is more than 8 bits of network data. But to make things simple, I'll stick with 8 bits to a byte.
So let's review:
65 gigabytes per month / 30 days = 2.167 gigabytes per day = 2167 megabytes per day.
2167 megabytes per day / 24 hours = 90.291 megabytes per hour = 90291 kilobytes per hour
90291 kilobytes per hour / 60 minutes = 1504 kilobytes per minute
1504 kilobytes per minute / 60 seconds = 25 kilobytes per second.
25 kilobytes per second * 8 = 200 kilobits per second
I don't know exactly what kind of data rates Orange actually supports, so at this point, I couldn't say whether this truly represents 24x7 torrent usage or not... but it still seems extreme, and it's obviously people who don't have landline broadband connections.
But like I said, cutting people down to 1GB per month is also extreme. It's pretty obvious that this is either a profit-making move or a plan designed to keep telcos happy by inflating cellular data prices enough that people have an incentive to keep their home and office broadband connections.
I have no idea what O2's data transfer speeds are like, but look at the numbers:
65GB/month is roughly 2GB/day
2GB/day is roughly 83MB/hour
83MB/hour is roughly 230Kbit/sec.
This means that a few thousand customers are using their data connection 24/7 at an average rate of 230kbit/sec, or 8 hours a day at a rate of around 700kb/sec.
Yes, that's excessive.
But based on those numbers, you could bounce past 1GB in one day. Where is the balance here?