How are they doing an end-run around her orders? Has the jury seen any of this evidence? I doubt it, considering that they're supposed to be sequestered now. So the "end-run" theory fails.
Besides, all of the documents were already in the public. All Samsung did was say "here is what the judge is suppressing." Here's a NYT article which explicitly mentions the F700 evidence...and it's dated before the jury had even been chosen!
Why not? It was raised only after the period for discovery was over.
Apple included the F700 in their own presentation and said it was another example of Samsung copying them. I believe this is called "opening the door", which means the F700 is now admissable even if it is raised after discovery.
It's hard to take you seriously with such a blatant strawman like this. No one is saying all activity must be abuse.
What we're saying is that abuse *will* happen, guaranteed. Look only to the origins of the FISA legislation and the Church committee for proof that our government will build dossiers on Americans for performing constitutionally protected activities.
We need oversight. Oversight like...I dunno...warrants? Because clearly oversight isn't working now, otherwise we wouldn't have Sen. Wyden claiming that "if only the US public knew how the US government was interpreting legislation, but we can't tell you because it's classified".
More importantly, we need punishment. When (not if) abuse is found, the individuals who abused those powers needs to be PUBLICLY tarred and feathered and thrown into prison for a long time. Not only the low-level operators, but EVERYONE involved in the operation. If you knew your ass was on the line if your co-worker abused these powers, you would turn him in if you knew about it. None of this "thin blue line" shit.
If you really believed the NSA was as good as you claim they are, you would support oversight and accountability, instead of trying to persuade people with what amounts to propaganda that the NSA is really a bunch of good guys and we have nothing to worry about.
But you were likely being casually racist in the absence of company who was the race in question. Twenty years ago, would you have said those jokes in front of someone of said race? If one would say the dirty joke with or without women around, that's quite a different example from yours.
You did nothing to address my criticism that there are far more women who tell dirty jokes than blacks who tell racist jokes about blacks. If "that's what she said" type jokes really create that hostile of a work environment, then please reconcile the observation that I have seen far more women tell dirty jokes in the work place than I have ever seen blacks. In my opinion, to be truly hostile, a reasonable person would have to find such things offensive, and I have seen far too many women tell dirty jokes to think that a reasonable person would find them offensive.
Regarding Cheyenne8, I think you are reading too much into it and seeing what you think is sexism. I'm pretty sure the intention is "people who are greedy will exploit the system in the absence of credible wrong doing". And I have seen enough people do such things to understand where Cheyenne8 is coming from. People do nasty things when they're out for revenge; men will mostly physically assault you, and bruises heal, but the women I've seen tend to go for your livelihood.
You should have seen my fiance's brother's divorce. They put $10k+ on their credit cards to pay for their honeymoon. She calls the man she's having an affair with on their honeymoon. Then she files for divorce, and tries to take the house, the car, and all their belongings, while leaving him with the debt. She would deactivate her Facebook so that he and his family could not unfriend her, and then she would reactivate it for a few minutes just to dig up dirt on him. I see this woman all over again when I read Cheyenne8's comment about an individual who sees $$ regardless of whether the atmosphere is actually hostile.
I dislike the black guy analogy because I don't see it as really comparing properly to women.
When someone tells a racist joke, it's almost always because that person actually truly deeply hates other races. And the vast majority of folks will not tell racist jokes about their own race, which backs up the idea that racist jokes are intentionally malicious.
When someone tells a dirty joke, that same person doesn't actually hate women deep down. And I have seen more than a fair share of women telling dirty jokes, which implies that it's not quite as demeaning or derogatory. Certainly there are jokes that can cross the line, but in general dirty jokes aren't taken as intentionally malicious the way a racist joke is.
All of your complaints seem to be based on being targeted, which is not necessarily the case. If the men were telling these sorts of jokes without the woman around, what makes you think that with a woman around she will become the target of the jokes?
Profit is what you get when an employee is paid a wage that is worth less than the product that they are making or the service they are providing. In and of itself, it is not necessarily a bad thing, considering that investors do need a return on investment. But there should be reasonable limits to prevent workers from being exploited.
And if that money didn't go toward the betterment of others, how long do you think it would be before the homes of the wealthy were looted?
Remember, a poor person is more likely to be a criminal because they have nothing else to lose. Taxes that benefit other social strata other than those the tax was taken from provide an incentive to the poor *not* to go looting.
You should be taxed based on the percentage of income/wealth that you have. So if the top 400 families have half of America's wealth, it makes some sense that the top 400 families might pay half of America's taxes.
Also, the "50% of the population pays zero taxes" is total BS. For one, it looks only at federal income taxes, ignoring every other tax, including other federal taxes like the payroll tax - which is an insanely regressive tax that takes orders of magnitude more in percentage terms from lower-income folks than it does upper income folks.
It also ignores that some people, like those collecting only Social Security, won't pay income tax on that money. Or that other folks are too poor to pay income taxes. Before complaining that these people are paying zero percent, you should try living on $22k/year for a family of four (yeah, that's the official poverty line).
Those $50k/plate dinners that the politicians hold? Each plate that night is worth more than two families of four in poverty for a YEAR. Two men, two women, four children....one plate.
The majority of voters overwhelmingly like what the PPACA provides for (no denial on pre-existing conditions, no lifetime limits on benefits, minimum 85% of premiums goes toward benefits, etc). What they don't like is the mandate, mostly because the noise surrounding the legislation prevents them from knowing exactly what the mandate says.
Oh, and by the way, the idea of a mandate is an entirely conservative approach toward health insurance reform. So if/when PPACA fails to bring down costs (because we still aren't negotiating bulk discounts for Medicare Part D, because we still ban drug reimportation, because we still don't have a centralized standard for portable electronic medical records, because hospitals still need entire departments to sort out billing, etc), don't blame it on "liberals", because the PPACA is most definitely not how a "liberal" would want health insurance reform to be executed.
As far as I know the police doesn't need a wiretap warrant to confiscate a letter found in someone's house, so why should they need to for a text message?
Ignoring for a moment I never said anything about wiretaps, I would like to know whether the police can open a piece of mail that they found in someone's house that has not yet been opened by that person; would such mail still be considered in transit for the purposes of warrantless-ness?. Because...
But you as sender of a text message to that phone only has 4th amendment protection of it in transit. Once it's in the recipient's possession, it can be seized from him without violating your rights.
If I send a text message to Juan, and Juan never gets it because the police intercepted it, does the message count as still "in transit"?
Furthermore, is it reasonable for the police to send snail mail from Juan's return address to me?
Yes, it could have been stolen. However, to say that something is not impossible is not to say that something is reasonable. The crux of the matter is that I have a reasonable expectation that a phone will not be stolen when I send a communication to it. After all, if the phone was stolen, a reasonable person would report it stolen promptly, and the service would be shut off, thereby removing the ability of the thief to read the contents of any message I send to the phone. With the advent of remote wipe abilities, you could also try to make the argument that a reasonable person would have all the info from a stolen phone remotely wiped, therefore denying access to even previously successful communications with the intended recipient.
However, I am drawn back to the snail mail analogy again. It's always been the case that someone could take the mail directly from your mailbox. However, this expectation is unreasonable because taking someone else's mail is illegal. In the same token, stealing someone's personal property is also illegal.
So, again, if you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy because the recipient's phone could be stolen, why would you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when sending snail mail?
After all, I reasonably expect people to be in possession of their own property, for instance their car. So if I see my wife's car in a parking lot, I would reasonably expect my wife to be somewhere nearby. However, I wouldn't find it unreasonable if instead I found, say, my mother-in-law nearby, because it's reasonable for her to let her mother drive her car.
Still, it feels almost like splitting hairs. After all, I would not reasonably expect a stranger to be driving her car; the only reason my mother-in-law wouldn't be unreasonable is because she's immediate family.
In that sense, I might not expect the intended person to be the exclusive recipient, but I would expect to know all potential recipients (e.g. if I send a message to my buddy, I could reasonably expect his wife to read the message, but I wouldn't reasonably expect his neighbor to be reading it).
Couldn't the same also be said about snail mail - that you have no reasonable expectation that the envelope will be opened by the recipient?
I must say, I find it slightly disturbing that there is no reasonable expectation that the owner of the phone is the one who will be reading my correspondence. What reasonable person does *not* expect someone to be in position of their own property? If it was not reasonable to believe the owner of a phone is the one holding it, why would we use such phones for communication?
3.5" screen looks soooo small. I just got a Galaxy S3 and I think it really has hit the sweet spot in size, just under 5". Easy to read, but small enough to fit in my hand or my pocket.
True "grown-ups" never have to call themselves grown-ups. Typically, those who denigrate another person's maturity are projecting their own lack of maturity.
Slashdot Mirror
How are they doing an end-run around her orders? Has the jury seen any of this evidence? I doubt it, considering that they're supposed to be sequestered now. So the "end-run" theory fails.
Besides, all of the documents were already in the public. All Samsung did was say "here is what the judge is suppressing." Here's a NYT article which explicitly mentions the F700 evidence...and it's dated before the jury had even been chosen!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/technology/apple-samsung-trial-highlights-patent-wars.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all
She has bugger all to say other than as a private citizen about Samsung's speech to the media.
What's more, wasn't this initially released only to the BBC?
In other words, a newspaper in the United Kingdom?
In other words...media that are outside her jurisdiction?
A little hard to influence a jury that's already been sequestered, isn't it?
Why not? It was raised only after the period for discovery was over.
Apple included the F700 in their own presentation and said it was another example of Samsung copying them. I believe this is called "opening the door", which means the F700 is now admissable even if it is raised after discovery.
You misread GP. When he said buffer, he means having an extra 10-20 FPS more than necessary. Headroom would have been a better word IMO.
It's hard to take you seriously with such a blatant strawman like this. No one is saying all activity must be abuse.
What we're saying is that abuse *will* happen, guaranteed. Look only to the origins of the FISA legislation and the Church committee for proof that our government will build dossiers on Americans for performing constitutionally protected activities.
We need oversight. Oversight like...I dunno...warrants? Because clearly oversight isn't working now, otherwise we wouldn't have Sen. Wyden claiming that "if only the US public knew how the US government was interpreting legislation, but we can't tell you because it's classified".
More importantly, we need punishment. When (not if) abuse is found, the individuals who abused those powers needs to be PUBLICLY tarred and feathered and thrown into prison for a long time. Not only the low-level operators, but EVERYONE involved in the operation. If you knew your ass was on the line if your co-worker abused these powers, you would turn him in if you knew about it. None of this "thin blue line" shit.
If you really believed the NSA was as good as you claim they are, you would support oversight and accountability, instead of trying to persuade people with what amounts to propaganda that the NSA is really a bunch of good guys and we have nothing to worry about.
But you were likely being casually racist in the absence of company who was the race in question. Twenty years ago, would you have said those jokes in front of someone of said race? If one would say the dirty joke with or without women around, that's quite a different example from yours.
You did nothing to address my criticism that there are far more women who tell dirty jokes than blacks who tell racist jokes about blacks. If "that's what she said" type jokes really create that hostile of a work environment, then please reconcile the observation that I have seen far more women tell dirty jokes in the work place than I have ever seen blacks. In my opinion, to be truly hostile, a reasonable person would have to find such things offensive, and I have seen far too many women tell dirty jokes to think that a reasonable person would find them offensive.
Regarding Cheyenne8, I think you are reading too much into it and seeing what you think is sexism. I'm pretty sure the intention is "people who are greedy will exploit the system in the absence of credible wrong doing". And I have seen enough people do such things to understand where Cheyenne8 is coming from. People do nasty things when they're out for revenge; men will mostly physically assault you, and bruises heal, but the women I've seen tend to go for your livelihood.
You should have seen my fiance's brother's divorce. They put $10k+ on their credit cards to pay for their honeymoon. She calls the man she's having an affair with on their honeymoon. Then she files for divorce, and tries to take the house, the car, and all their belongings, while leaving him with the debt. She would deactivate her Facebook so that he and his family could not unfriend her, and then she would reactivate it for a few minutes just to dig up dirt on him. I see this woman all over again when I read Cheyenne8's comment about an individual who sees $$ regardless of whether the atmosphere is actually hostile.
I dislike the black guy analogy because I don't see it as really comparing properly to women.
When someone tells a racist joke, it's almost always because that person actually truly deeply hates other races. And the vast majority of folks will not tell racist jokes about their own race, which backs up the idea that racist jokes are intentionally malicious.
When someone tells a dirty joke, that same person doesn't actually hate women deep down. And I have seen more than a fair share of women telling dirty jokes, which implies that it's not quite as demeaning or derogatory. Certainly there are jokes that can cross the line, but in general dirty jokes aren't taken as intentionally malicious the way a racist joke is.
All of your complaints seem to be based on being targeted, which is not necessarily the case. If the men were telling these sorts of jokes without the woman around, what makes you think that with a woman around she will become the target of the jokes?
Paterno protected a child molester! It's pretty sick that you would make a false equivalence between molesting children and telling a dirty joke.
Profit is what you get when an employee is paid a wage that is worth less than the product that they are making or the service they are providing. In and of itself, it is not necessarily a bad thing, considering that investors do need a return on investment. But there should be reasonable limits to prevent workers from being exploited.
And if that money didn't go toward the betterment of others, how long do you think it would be before the homes of the wealthy were looted?
Remember, a poor person is more likely to be a criminal because they have nothing else to lose. Taxes that benefit other social strata other than those the tax was taken from provide an incentive to the poor *not* to go looting.
You should be taxed based on the percentage of income/wealth that you have. So if the top 400 families have half of America's wealth, it makes some sense that the top 400 families might pay half of America's taxes.
Also, the "50% of the population pays zero taxes" is total BS. For one, it looks only at federal income taxes, ignoring every other tax, including other federal taxes like the payroll tax - which is an insanely regressive tax that takes orders of magnitude more in percentage terms from lower-income folks than it does upper income folks.
It also ignores that some people, like those collecting only Social Security, won't pay income tax on that money. Or that other folks are too poor to pay income taxes. Before complaining that these people are paying zero percent, you should try living on $22k/year for a family of four (yeah, that's the official poverty line).
Those $50k/plate dinners that the politicians hold? Each plate that night is worth more than two families of four in poverty for a YEAR. Two men, two women, four children....one plate.
Fuck you, you inconsiderate prick.
The majority of voters overwhelmingly like what the PPACA provides for (no denial on pre-existing conditions, no lifetime limits on benefits, minimum 85% of premiums goes toward benefits, etc). What they don't like is the mandate, mostly because the noise surrounding the legislation prevents them from knowing exactly what the mandate says.
Oh, and by the way, the idea of a mandate is an entirely conservative approach toward health insurance reform. So if/when PPACA fails to bring down costs (because we still aren't negotiating bulk discounts for Medicare Part D, because we still ban drug reimportation, because we still don't have a centralized standard for portable electronic medical records, because hospitals still need entire departments to sort out billing, etc), don't blame it on "liberals", because the PPACA is most definitely not how a "liberal" would want health insurance reform to be executed.
As far as I know the police doesn't need a wiretap warrant to confiscate a letter found in someone's house, so why should they need to for a text message?
Ignoring for a moment I never said anything about wiretaps, I would like to know whether the police can open a piece of mail that they found in someone's house that has not yet been opened by that person; would such mail still be considered in transit for the purposes of warrantless-ness?. Because...
But you as sender of a text message to that phone only has 4th amendment protection of it in transit. Once it's in the recipient's possession, it can be seized from him without violating your rights.
If I send a text message to Juan, and Juan never gets it because the police intercepted it, does the message count as still "in transit"?
Furthermore, is it reasonable for the police to send snail mail from Juan's return address to me?
Yes, it could have been stolen. However, to say that something is not impossible is not to say that something is reasonable. The crux of the matter is that I have a reasonable expectation that a phone will not be stolen when I send a communication to it. After all, if the phone was stolen, a reasonable person would report it stolen promptly, and the service would be shut off, thereby removing the ability of the thief to read the contents of any message I send to the phone. With the advent of remote wipe abilities, you could also try to make the argument that a reasonable person would have all the info from a stolen phone remotely wiped, therefore denying access to even previously successful communications with the intended recipient.
However, I am drawn back to the snail mail analogy again. It's always been the case that someone could take the mail directly from your mailbox. However, this expectation is unreasonable because taking someone else's mail is illegal. In the same token, stealing someone's personal property is also illegal.
So, again, if you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy because the recipient's phone could be stolen, why would you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when sending snail mail?
I guess I can see that, once you add "exclusive".
After all, I reasonably expect people to be in possession of their own property, for instance their car. So if I see my wife's car in a parking lot, I would reasonably expect my wife to be somewhere nearby. However, I wouldn't find it unreasonable if instead I found, say, my mother-in-law nearby, because it's reasonable for her to let her mother drive her car.
Still, it feels almost like splitting hairs. After all, I would not reasonably expect a stranger to be driving her car; the only reason my mother-in-law wouldn't be unreasonable is because she's immediate family.
In that sense, I might not expect the intended person to be the exclusive recipient, but I would expect to know all potential recipients (e.g. if I send a message to my buddy, I could reasonably expect his wife to read the message, but I wouldn't reasonably expect his neighbor to be reading it).
Couldn't the same also be said about snail mail - that you have no reasonable expectation that the envelope will be opened by the recipient?
I must say, I find it slightly disturbing that there is no reasonable expectation that the owner of the phone is the one who will be reading my correspondence. What reasonable person does *not* expect someone to be in position of their own property? If it was not reasonable to believe the owner of a phone is the one holding it, why would we use such phones for communication?
What do you think XBox certification is for? You're paying MS 10s of thousands to test your stuff and make sure it doesn't break.
Looks like MS failed to do their testing properly, and want this guy to pay for them to test again.
Don't you know that friends have access to your privates?
3.5" screen looks soooo small. I just got a Galaxy S3 and I think it really has hit the sweet spot in size, just under 5". Easy to read, but small enough to fit in my hand or my pocket.
Needs more cleavage.
( . )Y( . )
Nintendo also uses 0x0D15EA5E in the Wii as a magic value. It's always located at the same address in the Wii's RAM.
My wife loves big tits almost as much as I do. Does that make her sexist?
True "grown-ups" never have to call themselves grown-ups. Typically, those who denigrate another person's maturity are projecting their own lack of maturity.