How is this the Patent Offices fault?? Shouldn't one of the brainchildren of Apple thought to patent their stuff before putting it out on the market?? Maybe Apple needs to pull a few of it's lawyers of Creative for a bit...
Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"
on
Apple Sues Creative
·
· Score: 3, Funny
"Creating a surprise twist in the portable music wars, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has denied Apple's application to patent its method of using hierarchical menus to navigate through the iPod's contents.
The basis for the denial: A similar method outlined in a Microsoft researcher's patent application, filed after the iPod was introduced but before Apple sought its own patent."
Apple - always showing up at the gunfight with a knife....Albeit a totally sweet knife with the greatest GUI ever seen, (and a leather case) but a knife nonetheless...
well actually, according to Microsoft the bare minimum stated in the minimum requirements is 512MB. The suggested amount is 1GB (suggested is taken to mean minimum by many folks though).
and 1gb memory chips are neither rare, nor expensive.
"They want us to buy the hardware in order to run their operating system, when an operating system is supposed to run our hardware. Like people are going to buy hardware just to run the new Windows. That's like buying an airplane because Geico comes out with airplane insurance. I find that appalling"
Bad analogy. It's more like buying a new vehicle because your old one won't burn bio-diesel. But then again, bio-diesel isn't required and no one is forcing anyone to use it...
and after people slowly realize this, the program will be justified by claiming it is "protecting our children". I mean, won't somebody stop and think about the kids??
look at the spam that makes it through to your inbox - filters can be circumvented. Besides, would any serious terrorist speak in unencrypted, uncoded phrases oven an unprotected medium?? They are going to bust backseat "shoe bombers" and obvious dumbasses like Zacharias Moussouai at best... This is going to have zero effect on catching terrorists and huge potenetial for political abuses...
"The bush presidency is like a dam with a crack in it. At present, the crack is fairly small, but water is leaking out and the crack is widening. The question is, when will the dam finally burst?"
Actually, the real question is how long before Mary Cheney volunteers to stick her finger in the dyke...
So you're saying that if a non-US individual or company causes financial damage to companies inside the US that the FBI is powerless to do anything about it? By your flawed logic nobody would ever be able to investigate such crimes where the criminal & victim are located in different countries because no law enforcement agency has jurisdiction in both countries.
Nope, I never said they were powerless, or could not investigate. I said they didn't have jurisdiction - they would need the cooperation of local authorities to do these things (legally). That is usually where the system breaks down, unfortunately. If you haven't noticed, not every country agrees with the US all the time.
The FBI regularly works with law enforcement organizations in other countries when US individuals and/or corporations are targeted by foreign criminals. The FBI investigates, and when they've identified a suspect they contact the authorities in the suspects country, provide all the evidence, and request that they be arrested. The US has extradition treaties with over 100 other countries.
They do this because they don't have jurisdiction to operate and arrest people from other countries. That is why the extradition treaties are necessary. If the FBI had jurisdiction to arrest foreigners in foreign countries, they wouldn't need the local authorities to do this. (and they would probably be stepping on the toes of the NSA)
Also keep in mind that FBI agents do perform their own investigations in foreign countries when it's appropriate (both countries agree). Yes, the FBI doesn't have any law enforcement powers, but they can and do run investigations.
No arguement there, you state yourself that the FBI has no juisdiction in regards to law enforcement in foreign countries, so not sure what point you are trying to make. Once again,I only stated that the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction to arrest or perform other law enforcement duties outside the US. They can only ask the local authorities to do it. Basically they are the equivalent of "mall security" outside the USA. (albeit a very menacing, threatening "mall security")
Sorry, but the "Darwin" project has been shut down by the (un)Intelligent Design committee. From now on, instead of believing that software had gone through many changes, adapting to the environment, you are now supposed to believe that Jobs created the software from thin air, simply by snapping his fingers...
It doesn't. And if a spammer finds out you are using it, I would wager it would INCREASE the spam you are getting (a la Blue Security). I said from the start that spamming spammers would never work, and now it seems my point was proven with BS throwing in the towel. "If you don't want to get the horns, don't run with the bulls."
I use Dell Higher Education (I work at a University) and they will match any other price from a Dell reseller, or another Dell department (Small Business, Home) if you want to buy directly from them - I do it all the time.
So the NSA and any government agencies are above the law?? Any requests they make are automatically legal?? Why don't they have to follow the same laws Joe Smith does?? Explain why the NSA request is legal and Joe Smith's isn't WITHOUT using "because they are the government" as an answer..The NSA asking for the customers, and all customers not specific ones, doesn't seem like a "lawful request" to me. But then again I think prisoners of war on our "War on Terror" should be subject to the Geneva Converntion rules - but obviously that isn't happening...
Does Qwest share personal information collected online with third parties?
Qwest discloses personal information collected online to affiliates and to others, including our business partners and vendors, to provide the products and services you request and to enhance those products and services. We may share personal information collected online with the government or third parties who make a *lawful request* for it. We may also disclose personal information collected online to others to assert and defend our legal rights, and as otherwise authorized or required by law.
Once again it is all in the interpretation... Was this a "lawful request" or just a request? I would take "lawful request" as "we have a warrant" but that is just MY interpretation of it, and IANAL...
"There has to be some labor involved in stripping that information out of the raw data. Are my tax dollars filtering through NSA to the telco to do that, or are my phone bills directly paying for the telco to edit the data."
New multi-billion dollar exclusive Halliburton contract in 4...3...2...1
The funny thing is, Repugnicans like to have it both ways on this issue. First they complain the Clinton didn't DO anything about Bin Laden (besides informing the incoming Bushites that he was a security priority to keep an eye on - and was promptly ignored), then when reminded he did go after him, they claim it was because of Monica Lewinski...
Slashdot Mirror
[sarcasm] Yep, I for one think it is time to go back to safe, clean, and efficient coal burning to create power.... [/sarcasm]
How is this the Patent Offices fault?? Shouldn't one of the brainchildren of Apple thought to patent their stuff before putting it out on the market?? Maybe Apple needs to pull a few of it's lawyers of Creative for a bit...
"Creating a surprise twist in the portable music wars, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has denied Apple's application to patent its method of using hierarchical menus to navigate through the iPod's contents.
The basis for the denial: A similar method outlined in a Microsoft researcher's patent application, filed after the iPod was introduced but before Apple sought its own patent."
Apple - always showing up at the gunfight with a knife....Albeit a totally sweet knife with the greatest GUI ever seen, (and a leather case) but a knife nonetheless...
well actually, according to Microsoft the bare minimum stated in the minimum requirements is 512MB. The suggested amount is 1GB (suggested is taken to mean minimum by many folks though).
and 1gb memory chips are neither rare, nor expensive.
"They want us to buy the hardware in order to run their operating system, when an operating system is supposed to run our hardware. Like people are going to buy hardware just to run the new Windows. That's like buying an airplane because Geico comes out with airplane insurance. I find that appalling"
Bad analogy. It's more like buying a new vehicle because your old one won't burn bio-diesel. But then again, bio-diesel isn't required and no one is forcing anyone to use it...
the hypothetical machines you describe meet the requirements to run Vista - the manager takes a vacation in Hawaii....
"I run os x on my early g3/250 powerbook (with 160MB ram) and linux on an old 90mhz pentium classic (w/128MB).
On both, things run perfectly, with all gui features, XGL, aqua effects, etc etc."
I would like to know your defintion of perfectly
and after people slowly realize this, the program will be justified by claiming it is "protecting our children". I mean, won't somebody stop and think about the kids??
look at the spam that makes it through to your inbox - filters can be circumvented. Besides, would any serious terrorist speak in unencrypted, uncoded phrases oven an unprotected medium?? They are going to bust backseat "shoe bombers" and obvious dumbasses like Zacharias Moussouai at best... This is going to have zero effect on catching terrorists and huge potenetial for political abuses...
"The bush presidency is like a dam with a crack in it. At present, the crack is fairly small, but water is leaking out and the crack is widening. The question is, when will the dam finally burst?"
Actually, the real question is how long before Mary Cheney volunteers to stick her finger in the dyke...
Terrorists - they're the new Sandanistas!
"The terrorists hate freedom"... but apparently not as much as the US government does...
If they had been using the FISA court in the first place, as in legally to obtain warrants, this would be a non-issue...
why does every subject posted on /. eventually come back to the Matrix, Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings?? Oh, yeah, geeks - that's right. Silly me.
"Why is there less of a push for a privacy amendment than there is for a let-Arnold-run-for-president amendment? "
Because they are busy trying to get laws passed to prevent two gay people from "destroying the sanctity" of the word marriage...
All right, a mentholated cell phone.. .Now my phone and my Newports have the same minty taste!!!
So you're saying that if a non-US individual or company causes financial damage to companies inside the US that the FBI is powerless to do anything about it? By your flawed logic nobody would ever be able to investigate such crimes where the criminal & victim are located in different countries because no law enforcement agency has jurisdiction in both countries.
Nope, I never said they were powerless, or could not investigate. I said they didn't have jurisdiction - they would need the cooperation of local authorities to do these things (legally). That is usually where the system breaks down, unfortunately. If you haven't noticed, not every country agrees with the US all the time.
The FBI regularly works with law enforcement organizations in other countries when US individuals and/or corporations are targeted by foreign criminals. The FBI investigates, and when they've identified a suspect they contact the authorities in the suspects country, provide all the evidence, and request that they be arrested. The US has extradition treaties with over 100 other countries.
They do this because they don't have jurisdiction to operate and arrest people from other countries. That is why the extradition treaties are necessary. If the FBI had jurisdiction to arrest foreigners in foreign countries, they wouldn't need the local authorities to do this. (and they would probably be stepping on the toes of the NSA)
Also keep in mind that FBI agents do perform their own investigations in foreign countries when it's appropriate (both countries agree). Yes, the FBI doesn't have any law enforcement powers, but they can and do run investigations.
No arguement there, you state yourself that the FBI has no juisdiction in regards to law enforcement in foreign countries, so not sure what point you are trying to make. Once again,I only stated that the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction to arrest or perform other law enforcement duties outside the US. They can only ask the local authorities to do it. Basically they are the equivalent of "mall security" outside the USA. (albeit a very menacing, threatening "mall security")
Sorry, but the "Darwin" project has been shut down by the (un)Intelligent Design committee. From now on, instead of believing that software had gone through many changes, adapting to the environment, you are now supposed to believe that Jobs created the software from thin air, simply by snapping his fingers...
It doesn't. And if a spammer finds out you are using it, I would wager it would INCREASE the spam you are getting (a la Blue Security). I said from the start that spamming spammers would never work, and now it seems my point was proven with BS throwing in the towel. "If you don't want to get the horns, don't run with the bulls."
I use Dell Higher Education (I work at a University) and they will match any other price from a Dell reseller, or another Dell department (Small Business, Home) if you want to buy directly from them - I do it all the time.
It only works like that if your votes are actually counted the way you voted. Or at all....
So the NSA and any government agencies are above the law?? Any requests they make are automatically legal?? Why don't they have to follow the same laws Joe Smith does?? Explain why the NSA request is legal and Joe Smith's isn't WITHOUT using "because they are the government" as an answer..The NSA asking for the customers, and all customers not specific ones, doesn't seem like a "lawful request" to me. But then again I think prisoners of war on our "War on Terror" should be subject to the Geneva Converntion rules - but obviously that isn't happening...
From Qwest's online Privacy Policy - http://www.qwest.com/legal/privacy.html#3 -
Does Qwest share personal information collected online with third parties?
Qwest discloses personal information collected online to affiliates and to others, including our business partners and vendors, to provide the products and services you request and to enhance those products and services. We may share personal information collected online with the government or third parties who make a *lawful request* for it. We may also disclose personal information collected online to others to assert and defend our legal rights, and as otherwise authorized or required by law.
Once again it is all in the interpretation... Was this a "lawful request" or just a request? I would take "lawful request" as "we have a warrant" but that is just MY interpretation of it, and IANAL...
"There has to be some labor involved in stripping that information out of the raw data. Are my tax dollars filtering through NSA to the telco to do that, or are my phone bills directly paying for the telco to edit the data."
New multi-billion dollar exclusive Halliburton contract in 4...3...2...1
The funny thing is, Repugnicans like to have it both ways on this issue. First they complain the Clinton didn't DO anything about Bin Laden (besides informing the incoming Bushites that he was a security priority to keep an eye on - and was promptly ignored), then when reminded he did go after him, they claim it was because of Monica Lewinski...