Yes, but a single wrong bit, if uncorrected, can make a computer crash. This isn't bit errors we are talking about as happening in an audio device. This is a computer and a NAS we are discussing.
Since when does a SATA cable deliver 1s and 0s? It delivers an analog voltage, that happens to be determined as a 1 or 0 by noise thresholds. They could be making a better cable, the problem is once you meet the noise margins for this digital interpretation all extra improvement are for nothing.
Because, if a one is transmitted as a zero, it's an error. Ya know... the type of error that causes an OS crash... ya know... when things like swapped data are read from disk, or when the OS boots. Or an I/O error at the least.
Either a cable works, or it doesnt (and generates enough errors to raise a red (or blue) flag).
Anyway, it's even "worse" than that. Just like most digital things, there is a "zero range" and a "one range" and an "error range" inbetween. On a scale of 0 to 5 (because I am too lazy to think out the actual voltages used nowadays), lets say a zero is represented by a (voltage) range of 0-1.9 and a one is represented by a range of 3.2 to 5. Everything between 1.9 and 3.2 is an error as read by the (computer or NAS) motherboard. Bad HDD, bad cable or bad controller. If a cable was that susceptible to such "noise related errors" it would also mean lots of I/O retries and/or crashes and/or some alert of some sort (SMART error, OS error, or whatever).
(Ir)Regardless (for those who do and dont like that word/"word"), in the end, with a working cable, "Super SATA" or otherwise, the bits are still 100% exactly the same when they reach the computer, where they get handled as the binary (representations) that they are. The fact that they are "analog representations of binary 0/1" is irrelevant.
I hope your response went something like: "I can take two piles of dog shit and slap a sticker for $30 on one and $90 on the other. Just because the other says it costs $90 doesn't make it a better pile of dog shit"
I think I will definitely take your word for that. I dont think that's a study I'd like to conduct.:-)
LoL, thanks for the redundant!!! Good thing I dont post for karma or mods. Fact is though, mine was the eighth post (and was written when there was one - ah, waiting for "Preview" and "Save" on a slow computer can really kill things), and cant be very redundant if it came before the rest.
While your statement is correct, and something I considered, please re-read the person's blog. He talks about improvements in all sorts of sound related aspects (range, vocals, and on and on)... not in hum reduction and stuff due to EMF.
Indirectly. Just prior to that he wrote:
"My only guess is that the Super SATAs reject interference significantly better than the standard cables and in so doing lower the noise floor revealing greater low-level musical detail..."
lowering the 'noise floor' is the sort of thing one would expect. The flowery nonsense he writes after that is what invariably comes out of a happy audiophiles mouth, and can largely be ignored.
Yes, I know, but I read that too. Take a look at his statement again. That too is not possible. One cannot introduce or lower the noise ceiling on music via protecting the binary data bits running through the cable. It's not possible. It's called a data or I/O error if non "Super" cables allowed that. Look at how he worded it. "The (CABLE) rejects (the) interference", thus changing the sound of the music by reducing the noise floor. That's impossible. The digital data gets transmitted properly, or an I/O error occurs. In DIGITAL, even if there was an uncorrected I/O error (without device crash) it's popping or noises that would be heard or an error in the MP3 decoder when it did not get the data it expected (ie: in more serious cases) - kinda like playing a damaged AVI file, and not the music sounding better or worse. But of course, not even that happens. It's an I/O error, a retry or three, and a proper read or a failed read. Music gets sent (or more accurately, digital bits get sent - that just so happens to represent music) or it doesnt. Period. No noise, no noise floor, no higher or lower level of musical detail. The bits are exactly the same when they leave the drive as when they arrive at the PC. There is no other option. Exact bits, or I/O error. No "better bits"
Think about it, even if it did affect the actual bits transmitted, the music wouldn't sound better. It would most definitely sound worse since it's digital bits being changed - or the reverse, the music is finally being delivered bit for bit with the Super SATA cables, so previously, it didnt sound like music and sounded like noise. Go open an MP3 with a binary editor and start randomly changing bits and see what happens. But again, that's a moot point. It does not happen in data I/O without an I/O error.
Now, if he's using his SATA cables as audio (ie: speaker) cables, that's different. But I doubt that many people actually use SATA cables as a substitute for speaker cables.
The other possibility is that he worded it wrong, and he is talking about it not emitting interference that affects his speaker cables. He's very clear in wording it the exact opposite, which is supported by his flowery statement later though. But lets go under that assumption. The radiative strength of the signal going through a SATA cable isn't enough to even do that, "Super cable" or otherwise - unless maybe he has his speaker wires running inside his NAS and wrapped around his SATA cables. But that would be idiotic.
In all other similar scenarios, the noise is transmitted through the motherboard (PC or NAS) into the audio output/chipset/amplification circuitry. That isn't even a possible factor here, as the NAS is not decoding the binary stream and turning it into music. Even if there was some arbitrary way that "cable noise" was flowing OUT of the NAS, and radiating INTO the Cat5 cable, it STILL would not affect audio quality. Not unless it was a lot of noise (and somehow did not affect the data transmission through the Cat5 cable) and was then affecting the amp/sound chipset. That too is highly unlikely considering the large level of separation. Internally (if this drive and Super Cable were in the PC), perhaps. It may carry the hard drive's "noise" to the motherbo
This doesn't require double-blind tests, or really any tests of any type, because you just have to show that the same data makes it out the other end with either cable, which is trivial to do.
Unfortunately, this isn't the whole picture.
Its pretty much certain that the data passed by the cable is identical. But its not certain that that the electromagnetic field created by pushing the signal through the cable is not interfering with a nearby analog component, introducing noise or hum. A better shielded digital cable might well actually make a noticeable impact.
For example, I used to work on a computer that where I could hear a low level buzz from the speakers when the hard drive was working. Maybe a shielded cable would have made a difference... or repositioning the hard drive relative to the other components. Or maybe it was grounding issue or something... I didn't investigate it; it wasn't my computer.
While your statement is correct, and something I considered, please re-read the person's blog. He talks about improvements in all sorts of sound related aspects (range, vocals, and on and on)... not in hum reduction and stuff due to EMF.
So, had he went that route, his article would indeed seem to have some validity to it. Instead, he wrote this, which totally invalidates his entire advertisement... I mean blog post:
The most marked and worthwhile difference, I felt, was in the increased naturalness in both the sound of instruments and voices, which seemed more organic, human and less ‘electronic’, and in the music’s rhythmical progression, which was also more natural and had the realistic ebb and flow that musicians exhibit when playing live. In short, recordings sounded more like musical performances then recordings.
Instead, I think the article title says it all: "Super SATA Cables on Sale Soon" - which he got to "review" before they were on sale to the public. I wonder if the sample/test/preview cables came with a paycheck?
Best Buy and the other retailers take a significant chunk of the profit from Monster Cables, but I imagine that Monster keeps quite a bit of money, too. Production costs are going to be pretty much the same as any other cable, after all.
Yes, yes they (Monster) do.
As a matter of fact, one used to be able to buy Monster cables a LOT cheaper by going to Radio Shack, and buying the unbranded (non-Monster branded) RS cables, which, according to them (so, not sure of it's accuracy) at the time, were manufactured by Monster. Maybe a lot of that expense was stamping the cable with "Monster" all over it? OK, maybe not.
I have disabled Comments on this post so that respectable visitors do not have to read the remarks made by a small number of extremely ignorant, rude, malicious and disingenuous individuals who cannot tolerate people expressing opinions that do not concur with their own.
Which really means "I'm an ignorant, lying, idiot, and dont want people pointing that out on my blog, so I have closed commenting and deleted all comments, since they all pointed out my stupidity."
Science so far has been unable to prove, or disprove the existence of God. So in this particular argument, science is not really a factor. I think that anyone should be able to believe anything they want - without someone else trying to ram their opinion down their throat. Both believers and non-believers in God are guilty of this behavior.
In a perfect world with intelligent people, perhaps.
But in THIS world, those who believe in religion/god are far more dangerous than those who do not. As evidence, I point out centuries (millenia?) of holy wars across the globe, numerous hate crimes in the name of god, hanging, lynchings and burning witches at the stake in the name of god, persecution of scientists in the name of god... heck, I could go on for paragraphs about general events. I could write a BOOK about the specific events.
While there are surely individual atheists who commit violent acts or foster hate, it's like comparing a bucket of water (atheists and their actions) to the ocean (those actions of religious war/hate mongers).
Thus, while your sentiment is correct, it only touches upon the tiniest aspect of a much larger problem... one in which those who believe in god, as a group/institution/populace, are far more guilty of committing. And sadly, most major religions are equally as guilty in this respect. Until atheists organize in such large groups and start wars in the name of "no god" then the large majority of the evil still resides on the side of the uber-religious and religious zealots (and their millions, if not BILLIONS of followers).
Ironically, there are those on either side of the equation who do not act so idiotically. There are churches who condemn violence for these idiotic dogmatic reasons, there are atheists who have no problems with others believing in (whatever) god. And so on. But for the most part (on a global scale - and even to a lesser extent, but still occurring in the US), the various institutions of religion have been (historically, and even present day) filled with leaders trying to find reasons to hate or reasons to go to war.
This really sets a horrendous precedent, as it gives school officials the ability to use such invasive and insane actions to spy on kids.
How so? The prosecutor felt that the administrators did not intentionally violate the law; this is a factual determination that doesn't set "precedent." Another administrator is not going to say "ooh, now I can spy on them because of this case"; knowing about this case means if they spy on the students they knowingly violated the law and can be charged.
You honestly dont see all the things wrong in your post? Seriously. ANYONE with a brain knows that spying on someone in their own home is illegal - and via using such technological measures, it's "MORE" illegal (ie: even more laws violated).
And you honestly now think that ignorance of the law is an excuse for being able to violate it? Give that a try and tell me how that works out for you. On top of that, this situation would have to be ignorance by people who's jobs it is to know such relevant laws. Making it even more absurd, even if your premise (not knowing the law makes it ok) was true.
Really, how many people actually don't know it's illegal to spy on other people in those people's homes? And worse, how many people think it's legal to spy on KIDS?
So tell me this:
(1) Do you REALLY believe anyone thinks such activities are legal (spying on other people in their homes)?
(2) Do you REALLY believe, that since it's KIDS involved, people would think it's ok?
(3) Do you honestly believe ignorance of such laws is a legitimate reason for breaking them and thus means no charges should be brought?
(4) Even if you believe #3, go back to #1 and #2. Heck, people complain about being videotaped in PUBLIC places. They all sure as heck know it's not legal to surreptiously video and audio record MINORS in their own homes.
The fraud comment was not mine... due to a broken quote tag... this sentence was from the comment I replied to:
By having this case go to civil court, the victims could get monitory compensation and its simply the proper place to have a trial on something like this. Its not a criminal matter, its fraud and a breach of contract.
It distinctly avoids setting a precedent. Prosecuter's are not judges. If enough people leaving flaming bags of dog shit on his doorstep (or the Mayor's), he'll get the message and tow the line. If that doesn't happen, then I guess he will have made the right decision.
Wow, I forgot so many of you play/. lawyers. There are other applicable definitions for the term which apply to my statement. I thought it was OBVIOUS that I was not talking about a legal related precedent. That means the following definition applies to my statement, as I explained... oh, 3 times so far:
a. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
Inotherwords, this may affect how other prosecutors decide to (or not to) deal with similar situations.
...No it doesn't, it simply says that the federal government isn't going to press charges, which is probably a good thing because:
...
B) Its a civil matter
It's only a civil matter because the government decided not to prosecute it criminally.
By having this case go to civil court, the victims could get monitory compensation and its simply the proper place to have a trial on something like this. Its not a criminal matter, its fraud and a breach of contract.
Ummm... just so you know... if the govt had proceeded with prosecuting this as a criminal matter, that in no way stops the people from filing a civil suit against the school. Actually, it makes things easier (especially if the school lost the criminal case).
Unless of course, I was using the word "precedent" in a non-court/legal related way. In which case it applies, and my statement is indicating that, without a change in the government's mindset, it sets a precedent in how the government will handle such things.
(3) Obviously the RIAA has no chance of reaching their goal. The US government has zero authority to force MP3 players or phones to have radios. It simply does not exist in the constitution. (Such a power, if it exists, is reserved to the Member States or the People.)
Wow, as always, you are so good at being wrong. Even IF other parts of the Constitution do not cover it, the Interstate Commerce Clause most definitely covers such things - and it's a far less of a stretch than the one used by the government (and supported by the courts) in convicting people who make certain... illegal products... because it can affect interstate commerce of the same illegal products (pot comes to mind).
There are various reasons the Interstate Commerce Clause apply. Sadly, it can be applied to almost anything with the current interpretations - but even without them, a device such as the ones discussed, are definitely covered due to the nature of their sales, manufacturing, assembly and operation.
This really sets a horrendous precedent, as it gives school officials the ability to use such invasive and insane actions to spy on kids.
Amazing that the government's "think of the children" response to everything else unrelated isn't being applied to one of the few cases where it actually should be.
You're wrong. When the Enterprise's central computer dies, the PADDs become worthless bricks. They have no processing power by themselves. They are simply dumb terminals, like the old VAX terminals.
I didnt realize that. What episode or movie was that established in? If it wasn't actually said in an episode/movie or shown in an episode/movie, then it's not true in the fictional Star Trek universe. Or so Paramount and CBS have decreed.
Yes, the user must approve giving the 'Trojan' access to sending text messages, which is included under a big banner that says "Things that can cost you money". Of course, after the 40th or 50th app installed, no one reads them anymore and just clicks the OK button, but Android does notify you of what it's capable of, and even that requires you to check the install apps from other sources button.
Fortunately, owning a G1, with limited memory storage available, I have yet to reach my 40th or 50th app install, and thus still read that stuff before I install. I figure I have about 20 more apps to go before I start skipping that section and just install without reading...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but a single wrong bit, if uncorrected, can make a computer crash. This isn't bit errors we are talking about as happening in an audio device. This is a computer and a NAS we are discussing.
Since when does a SATA cable deliver 1s and 0s? It delivers an analog voltage, that happens to be determined as a 1 or 0 by noise thresholds. They could be making a better cable, the problem is once you meet the noise margins for this digital interpretation all extra improvement are for nothing.
Because, if a one is transmitted as a zero, it's an error. Ya know... the type of error that causes an OS crash... ya know... when things like swapped data are read from disk, or when the OS boots. Or an I/O error at the least.
Either a cable works, or it doesnt (and generates enough errors to raise a red (or blue) flag).
Anyway, it's even "worse" than that. Just like most digital things, there is a "zero range" and a "one range" and an "error range" inbetween. On a scale of 0 to 5 (because I am too lazy to think out the actual voltages used nowadays), lets say a zero is represented by a (voltage) range of 0-1.9 and a one is represented by a range of 3.2 to 5. Everything between 1.9 and 3.2 is an error as read by the (computer or NAS) motherboard. Bad HDD, bad cable or bad controller. If a cable was that susceptible to such "noise related errors" it would also mean lots of I/O retries and/or crashes and/or some alert of some sort (SMART error, OS error, or whatever).
(Ir)Regardless (for those who do and dont like that word/"word"), in the end, with a working cable, "Super SATA" or otherwise, the bits are still 100% exactly the same when they reach the computer, where they get handled as the binary (representations) that they are. The fact that they are "analog representations of binary 0/1" is irrelevant.
I hope your response went something like: "I can take two piles of dog shit and slap a sticker for $30 on one and $90 on the other. Just because the other says it costs $90 doesn't make it a better pile of dog shit"
I think I will definitely take your word for that. I dont think that's a study I'd like to conduct. :-)
LoL, thanks for the redundant!!! Good thing I dont post for karma or mods. Fact is though, mine was the eighth post (and was written when there was one - ah, waiting for "Preview" and "Save" on a slow computer can really kill things), and cant be very redundant if it came before the rest.
While your statement is correct, and something I considered, please re-read the person's blog. He talks about improvements in all sorts of sound related aspects (range, vocals, and on and on)... not in hum reduction and stuff due to EMF.
Indirectly. Just prior to that he wrote:
"My only guess is that the Super SATAs reject interference significantly better than the standard cables and in so doing lower the noise floor revealing greater low-level musical detail..."
lowering the 'noise floor' is the sort of thing one would expect. The flowery nonsense he writes after that is what invariably comes out of a happy audiophiles mouth, and can largely be ignored.
Yes, I know, but I read that too. Take a look at his statement again. That too is not possible. One cannot introduce or lower the noise ceiling on music via protecting the binary data bits running through the cable. It's not possible. It's called a data or I/O error if non "Super" cables allowed that. Look at how he worded it. "The (CABLE) rejects (the) interference", thus changing the sound of the music by reducing the noise floor. That's impossible. The digital data gets transmitted properly, or an I/O error occurs. In DIGITAL, even if there was an uncorrected I/O error (without device crash) it's popping or noises that would be heard or an error in the MP3 decoder when it did not get the data it expected (ie: in more serious cases) - kinda like playing a damaged AVI file, and not the music sounding better or worse. But of course, not even that happens. It's an I/O error, a retry or three, and a proper read or a failed read. Music gets sent (or more accurately, digital bits get sent - that just so happens to represent music) or it doesnt. Period. No noise, no noise floor, no higher or lower level of musical detail. The bits are exactly the same when they leave the drive as when they arrive at the PC. There is no other option. Exact bits, or I/O error. No "better bits"
Think about it, even if it did affect the actual bits transmitted, the music wouldn't sound better. It would most definitely sound worse since it's digital bits being changed - or the reverse, the music is finally being delivered bit for bit with the Super SATA cables, so previously, it didnt sound like music and sounded like noise. Go open an MP3 with a binary editor and start randomly changing bits and see what happens. But again, that's a moot point. It does not happen in data I/O without an I/O error.
Now, if he's using his SATA cables as audio (ie: speaker) cables, that's different. But I doubt that many people actually use SATA cables as a substitute for speaker cables.
The other possibility is that he worded it wrong, and he is talking about it not emitting interference that affects his speaker cables. He's very clear in wording it the exact opposite, which is supported by his flowery statement later though. But lets go under that assumption. The radiative strength of the signal going through a SATA cable isn't enough to even do that, "Super cable" or otherwise - unless maybe he has his speaker wires running inside his NAS and wrapped around his SATA cables. But that would be idiotic.
In all other similar scenarios, the noise is transmitted through the motherboard (PC or NAS) into the audio output/chipset/amplification circuitry. That isn't even a possible factor here, as the NAS is not decoding the binary stream and turning it into music. Even if there was some arbitrary way that "cable noise" was flowing OUT of the NAS, and radiating INTO the Cat5 cable, it STILL would not affect audio quality. Not unless it was a lot of noise (and somehow did not affect the data transmission through the Cat5 cable) and was then affecting the amp/sound chipset. That too is highly unlikely considering the large level of separation. Internally (if this drive and Super Cable were in the PC), perhaps. It may carry the hard drive's "noise" to the motherbo
This doesn't require double-blind tests, or really any tests of any type, because you just have to show that the same data makes it out the other end with either cable, which is trivial to do.
Unfortunately, this isn't the whole picture.
Its pretty much certain that the data passed by the cable is identical. But its not certain that that the electromagnetic field created by pushing the signal through the cable is not interfering with a nearby analog component, introducing noise or hum. A better shielded digital cable might well actually make a noticeable impact.
For example, I used to work on a computer that where I could hear a low level buzz from the speakers when the hard drive was working. Maybe a shielded cable would have made a difference... or repositioning the hard drive relative to the other components. Or maybe it was grounding issue or something... I didn't investigate it; it wasn't my computer.
While your statement is correct, and something I considered, please re-read the person's blog. He talks about improvements in all sorts of sound related aspects (range, vocals, and on and on)... not in hum reduction and stuff due to EMF.
So, had he went that route, his article would indeed seem to have some validity to it. Instead, he wrote this, which totally invalidates his entire advertisement... I mean blog post:
The most marked and worthwhile difference, I felt, was in the increased naturalness in both the sound of instruments and voices, which seemed more organic, human and less ‘electronic’, and in the music’s rhythmical progression, which was also more natural and had the realistic ebb and flow that musicians exhibit when playing live. In short, recordings sounded more like musical performances then recordings.
Instead, I think the article title says it all: "Super SATA Cables on Sale Soon" - which he got to "review" before they were on sale to the public. I wonder if the sample/test/preview cables came with a paycheck?
Best Buy and the other retailers take a significant chunk of the profit from Monster Cables, but I imagine that Monster keeps quite a bit of money, too. Production costs are going to be pretty much the same as any other cable, after all.
Yes, yes they (Monster) do.
As a matter of fact, one used to be able to buy Monster cables a LOT cheaper by going to Radio Shack, and buying the unbranded (non-Monster branded) RS cables, which, according to them (so, not sure of it's accuracy) at the time, were manufactured by Monster. Maybe a lot of that expense was stamping the cable with "Monster" all over it? OK, maybe not.
The author now has this up:
I have disabled Comments on this post so that respectable visitors do not have to read the remarks made by a small number of extremely ignorant, rude, malicious and disingenuous individuals who cannot tolerate people expressing opinions that do not concur with their own.
Which really means "I'm an ignorant, lying, idiot, and dont want people pointing that out on my blog, so I have closed commenting and deleted all comments, since they all pointed out my stupidity."
Ah well...
The fundamental problem is that most people are credulous morons.
I dunno... my studies show that only about 80% of people are credulous morons, while 50% of people are moronic intellectuals.
Science so far has been unable to prove, or disprove the existence of God. So in this particular argument, science is not really a factor. I think that anyone should be able to believe anything they want - without someone else trying to ram their opinion down their throat. Both believers and non-believers in God are guilty of this behavior.
In a perfect world with intelligent people, perhaps.
But in THIS world, those who believe in religion/god are far more dangerous than those who do not. As evidence, I point out centuries (millenia?) of holy wars across the globe, numerous hate crimes in the name of god, hanging, lynchings and burning witches at the stake in the name of god, persecution of scientists in the name of god... heck, I could go on for paragraphs about general events. I could write a BOOK about the specific events.
While there are surely individual atheists who commit violent acts or foster hate, it's like comparing a bucket of water (atheists and their actions) to the ocean (those actions of religious war/hate mongers).
Thus, while your sentiment is correct, it only touches upon the tiniest aspect of a much larger problem... one in which those who believe in god, as a group/institution/populace, are far more guilty of committing. And sadly, most major religions are equally as guilty in this respect. Until atheists organize in such large groups and start wars in the name of "no god" then the large majority of the evil still resides on the side of the uber-religious and religious zealots (and their millions, if not BILLIONS of followers).
Ironically, there are those on either side of the equation who do not act so idiotically. There are churches who condemn violence for these idiotic dogmatic reasons, there are atheists who have no problems with others believing in (whatever) god. And so on. But for the most part (on a global scale - and even to a lesser extent, but still occurring in the US), the various institutions of religion have been (historically, and even present day) filled with leaders trying to find reasons to hate or reasons to go to war.
This really sets a horrendous precedent, as it gives school officials the ability to use such invasive and insane actions to spy on kids.
How so? The prosecutor felt that the administrators did not intentionally violate the law; this is a factual determination that doesn't set "precedent." Another administrator is not going to say "ooh, now I can spy on them because of this case"; knowing about this case means if they spy on the students they knowingly violated the law and can be charged.
You honestly dont see all the things wrong in your post? Seriously. ANYONE with a brain knows that spying on someone in their own home is illegal - and via using such technological measures, it's "MORE" illegal (ie: even more laws violated).
And you honestly now think that ignorance of the law is an excuse for being able to violate it? Give that a try and tell me how that works out for you. On top of that, this situation would have to be ignorance by people who's jobs it is to know such relevant laws. Making it even more absurd, even if your premise (not knowing the law makes it ok) was true.
Really, how many people actually don't know it's illegal to spy on other people in those people's homes? And worse, how many people think it's legal to spy on KIDS?
So tell me this:
(1) Do you REALLY believe anyone thinks such activities are legal (spying on other people in their homes)?
(2) Do you REALLY believe, that since it's KIDS involved, people would think it's ok?
(3) Do you honestly believe ignorance of such laws is a legitimate reason for breaking them and thus means no charges should be brought?
(4) Even if you believe #3, go back to #1 and #2. Heck, people complain about being videotaped in PUBLIC places. They all sure as heck know it's not legal to surreptiously video and audio record MINORS in their own homes.
The fraud comment was not mine... due to a broken quote tag... this sentence was from the comment I replied to:
By having this case go to civil court, the victims could get monitory compensation and its simply the proper place to have a trial on something like this. Its not a criminal matter, its fraud and a breach of contract.
Next time I really need to preview my posts...
LoL, thanks. Guess I need a nap or more coffee... or both. :-)
It distinctly avoids setting a precedent. Prosecuter's are not judges. If enough people leaving flaming bags of dog shit on his doorstep (or the Mayor's), he'll get the message and tow the line. If that doesn't happen, then I guess he will have made the right decision.
Wow, I forgot so many of you play /. lawyers. There are other applicable definitions for the term which apply to my statement. I thought it was OBVIOUS that I was not talking about a legal related precedent. That means the following definition applies to my statement, as I explained... oh, 3 times so far:
a. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
Inotherwords, this may affect how other prosecutors decide to (or not to) deal with similar situations.
Sorry, not a LEGAL precedent. But a precedent in how the feds deal with such similar complaints or actions.
Personally, I like "squishing the worm" or "rubbing the eel" - at least for now... till I manage to find a date. But that's just me. ;-)
...No it doesn't, it simply says that the federal government isn't going to press charges, which is probably a good thing because:
...
B) Its a civil matter
It's only a civil matter because the government decided not to prosecute it criminally.
By having this case go to civil court, the victims could get monitory compensation and its simply the proper place to have a trial on something like this. Its not a criminal matter, its fraud and a breach of contract.
Ummm... just so you know... if the govt had proceeded with prosecuting this as a criminal matter, that in no way stops the people from filing a civil suit against the school. Actually, it makes things easier (especially if the school lost the criminal case).
Ahem, a precedent is set by going to trial, not by avoiding it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
Unless of course, I was using the word "precedent" in a non-court/legal related way. In which case it applies, and my statement is indicating that, without a change in the government's mindset, it sets a precedent in how the government will handle such things.
(3) Obviously the RIAA has no chance of reaching their goal. The US government has zero authority to force MP3 players or phones to have radios. It simply does not exist in the constitution. (Such a power, if it exists, is reserved to the Member States or the People.)
Wow, as always, you are so good at being wrong. Even IF other parts of the Constitution do not cover it, the Interstate Commerce Clause most definitely covers such things - and it's a far less of a stretch than the one used by the government (and supported by the courts) in convicting people who make certain... illegal products... because it can affect interstate commerce of the same illegal products (pot comes to mind).
There are various reasons the Interstate Commerce Clause apply. Sadly, it can be applied to almost anything with the current interpretations - but even without them, a device such as the ones discussed, are definitely covered due to the nature of their sales, manufacturing, assembly and operation.
This really sets a horrendous precedent, as it gives school officials the ability to use such invasive and insane actions to spy on kids.
Amazing that the government's "think of the children" response to everything else unrelated isn't being applied to one of the few cases where it actually should be.
Ah... non canon then. Of the elements incorporated into the movies and TV series from that book, I still dont recall that being one of them.
You're wrong. When the Enterprise's central computer dies, the PADDs become worthless bricks. They have no processing power by themselves. They are simply dumb terminals, like the old VAX terminals.
I didnt realize that. What episode or movie was that established in? If it wasn't actually said in an episode/movie or shown in an episode/movie, then it's not true in the fictional Star Trek universe. Or so Paramount and CBS have decreed.
Yes, the user must approve giving the 'Trojan' access to sending text messages, which is included under a big banner that says "Things that can cost you money". Of course, after the 40th or 50th app installed, no one reads them anymore and just clicks the OK button, but Android does notify you of what it's capable of, and even that requires you to check the install apps from other sources button.
Fortunately, owning a G1, with limited memory storage available, I have yet to reach my 40th or 50th app install, and thus still read that stuff before I install. I figure I have about 20 more apps to go before I start skipping that section and just install without reading...
;-)
I encourage you to read my later comment... :-)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1747422&cid=33184812
Why the hell would anybody with a brain expect an Android based cheap tablet to have Windows 7 drivers.
FACT: It is an Android tablet. NOT A WIN 7 DEVICE.
The drivers are to CONNECT it to and USE it with a Win7 machine - NOT for the tablet itself.