I was watching (a rare event for me) a Sunday morning news segment (that was quite long) about red light cameras. I picked up some interesting information.
For instance:
1) The cameras are not owned by the Cities that use them. The cameras are rented and a portion of the fines collected are pocketed by the companies that own the cameras.
2) Most Cities proudly reduce the yellow light duration to 3 seconds. Those companies that own the cameras require that the Cities reduce the yellow to 3 seconds, otherwise they'll pull the cameras out. The fines must also be within a certain threshold or those companies owning the cameras will pull them out.
Before pleading guilty remember to check the City ordinances on how long those yellow lights are supposed to be.
3) The cameras must yield a certain number of tickets or the cameras don't make money. So, they reduce the yellow duration, or they put more cameras up.
4) There's at least initially, a substantive increase in rear end accidents.
5) The red light cameras make a significant amount of money for the Cities with little to no discernible increase in traffic safety. Most cities refuse to produce the factual statistics showing the results.
6) Most people that dispute the tickets should dispute them and ask that the Judges reduce the fine.
7) Residents should ask to have the proposals for red light cameras put on the ballot before the City does so; and they should set the maximum fine to equal the lowest ticket fine possible. In most communities that's $20.00 whereas if that's not made part of the ballot then fines are around $150.
8) Most red light camera tickets/fines don't go on your driving record nor on your insurance record.
Microsoft should not be the ones that set the writing to law when it comes to any security issue. They have an extremely poor reputation as it is. What Microsoft defines should have little weight in the community where these issues are discovered and discussed. Over the years those that have uncovered these security issues have been well restrained. They seem significantly better equipped to deal with how and when they should be disclosed. If not for them, discovered issues would likely never be disclosed to the public, and the public would not be exerting enough pressure to get them fixed (let alone prioritized).
iFizzle. iFizzle. iFizzle. iFizzle. You begin casting iMagic. iTarget (iFanboi) succumbed to iMagic. iFizzle. iFizzle. iFizzle. You become better at iFizzle. iFizzle. iFizzle. You begin casting iMagic. iTarget (iNonFanboi) resisted iMagic. Try iMagic again after you reduce their reality distortion field shield with iMalosini.
I like track pads. There are new drivers out that provide multi-touch on most track pads for the PC. This Apple offering isn't that interesting, except for its' size. The device, as with most Apple mice and keyboards should work on PCs, albeit without the multi-touch. It's a bit pricey though.
The others have no interest to me. They are essentially the same products as the past but with a few more features. Certainly some are not worth the price. Crack open that display and you'll likely find a Samsung panel in it.
This is not true. Not completely. Laws clearly state that unless the modification caused severe enough damage only then can the warranty be voided. In other words, just unlocking an iPhone that was designed to be bricked in the unlock process (by Apple) would not void the warranty.
I'm surprised Ars didn't mention unlocking of cell phones--something that had been granted in the past.
It also makes it illegal for Apple to do the inverse. In other words they can't stop the jailbreaking by breaking things during the jailbreak process.
I don't need 13 pages of document to explain the location collection policies. That's ridiculous. The average consumer is going to understand this? I think not.
The simple solution Apple, is to not distribute nor collect it.
You probably don't know that he's not talking about CRTs. He's talking about flat black vs. glossy. Glossy is very reflective. Flat black is not. I personally can't understand why anyone sells glossy.
I went to Best Buy and noticed two monitors. One was $10.00 less than the other. They both looked the same design. The difference was that the flat black display was $10.00 cheaper than the glossy. I pointed out the fault to Best Buy and they changed the price of the flat black to match that of the glossy. A couple weeks later they'd changed it back.
This is patently false. When you understand the law, the real law, then you become an elected Judge and you hear the evidence, then you can judge Gizmodo.
Under California law most legal experts agree that Gizmodo was/is innocent and was perfectly within their rights to do exactly what they did.
It was illegal to issue the warrant and it was an abuse of power by Jobs himself to push REACT to do this investigation while their legal department must have assuredly informed them that Gizmodo was within the law, especially since they already had the phone back--and within the law means they could have destroyed the phone if they so chose.
Apple will be sued and either settle or be found guilty. Chen will make some money, which he deserves, especially when a large corporation performs like a fascist.
Apple knew Chen was a journalist. Apple also knew they had been on the loosing end of numerous other legal issues involving journalists. Apple chose this route to do an end run around the law in order to get at the journalist's protected information.
When you finally understand what a bailor and bailee is, and you understand how it applies in the Gizmodo case, then you can try to convince us, but I'm sure you'll fail as the law is pretty clear. Gizmodo and Jason Chen were within their legal rights and performed legally in all they had done. I'm not saying they were perfect angels, but the were in no way criminals and committed no criminal act.
Mossberg isn't in a rural area so he doesn't know what he's missing. He's in a densely populated area. He's simply focusing on what will give him the most benefit. He disregards everyone else not in his same position.
The bars dropping are not what is at issue here. You are obfuscating the real issue, which is the dropped calls and poor data performance while touching that spot. And I often hold my iPhone with my left hand to touch the screen with my right one.
You are acting like a child. Gizmodo is a fine site, one of many that 10s of thousands of people visit every day for tech news. And, BTW, the warrant on Jason Chen was reversed and he was given his possessions back. That's because the EFF pointed out that those actions taken by REACT, driven by Apple, were illegal.
Where's your head at man? The link is about RIM's response to Apple's accusation. It says that they don't have the problem Apple has and that Apple should take responsibility for (but won't).
Imagine years ago when you had to go to the library to look shit up to determine if it was accurate or not. I remember having subscriptions to multiple newspapers. I did that to ensure that I could get broad more accurate picture. I had to stop because they were all narrow, far too editorialized, and inaccurate. Not that the internet is that much better but at least we don't have to pay to support those buffoons spouting their feldercarb, and we can talk back in forums such as this.
He's a nightmare. To the undereducated he's the wrong influence. His "thinking for them" propagates a bad future potential for them and their children.
Women, in my experience, are the same way. Given that they believe their spouse/boy friend did something it is next to impossible to overcome that belief, even if you prove they didn't do it or that it didn't happen that way. Every relationship I've had has been that way. Even amongst the wives and girl friends of friends and relatives this seems prevalent. My latest heart throb is that way. When she believes something there's no changing her mind, regardless of whether the facts prove her wrong. Even if she admits to the facts she can't overcome the emotional tie she has to "bad" facts she believed. It can be very unfair.
Slashdot Mirror
California stops are also considered running a red light, which in most cases are not significant enough to be a traffic safety hazard.
I was watching (a rare event for me) a Sunday morning news segment (that was quite long) about red light cameras. I picked up some interesting information.
For instance:
1) The cameras are not owned by the Cities that use them. The cameras are rented and a portion of the fines collected are pocketed by the companies that own the cameras.
2) Most Cities proudly reduce the yellow light duration to 3 seconds. Those companies that own the cameras require that the Cities reduce the yellow to 3 seconds, otherwise they'll pull the cameras out. The fines must also be within a certain threshold or those companies owning the cameras will pull them out.
Before pleading guilty remember to check the City ordinances on how long those yellow lights are supposed to be.
3) The cameras must yield a certain number of tickets or the cameras don't make money. So, they reduce the yellow duration, or they put more cameras up.
4) There's at least initially, a substantive increase in rear end accidents.
5) The red light cameras make a significant amount of money for the Cities with little to no discernible increase in traffic safety. Most cities refuse to produce the factual statistics showing the results.
6) Most people that dispute the tickets should dispute them and ask that the Judges reduce the fine.
7) Residents should ask to have the proposals for red light cameras put on the ballot before the City does so; and they should set the maximum fine to equal the lowest ticket fine possible. In most communities that's $20.00 whereas if that's not made part of the ballot then fines are around $150.
8) Most red light camera tickets/fines don't go on your driving record nor on your insurance record.
It easily applies to Microsoft. I doubt though he was making the combined list the requirement.
Microsoft should not be the ones that set the writing to law when it comes to any security issue. They have an extremely poor reputation as it is. What Microsoft defines should have little weight in the community where these issues are discovered and discussed. Over the years those that have uncovered these security issues have been well restrained. They seem significantly better equipped to deal with how and when they should be disclosed. If not for them, discovered issues would likely never be disclosed to the public, and the public would not be exerting enough pressure to get them fixed (let alone prioritized).
iFizzle. iFizzle. iFizzle. iFizzle. You begin casting iMagic. iTarget (iFanboi) succumbed to iMagic. iFizzle. iFizzle. iFizzle. You become better at iFizzle. iFizzle. iFizzle. You begin casting iMagic. iTarget (iNonFanboi) resisted iMagic. Try iMagic again after you reduce their reality distortion field shield with iMalosini.
I like track pads. There are new drivers out that provide multi-touch on most track pads for the PC. This Apple offering isn't that interesting, except for its' size. The device, as with most Apple mice and keyboards should work on PCs, albeit without the multi-touch. It's a bit pricey though.
The others have no interest to me. They are essentially the same products as the past but with a few more features. Certainly some are not worth the price. Crack open that display and you'll likely find a Samsung panel in it.
This is not true. Not completely. Laws clearly state that unless the modification caused severe enough damage only then can the warranty be voided. In other words, just unlocking an iPhone that was designed to be bricked in the unlock process (by Apple) would not void the warranty.
I'm surprised Ars didn't mention unlocking of cell phones--something that had been granted in the past.
It also makes it illegal for Apple to do the inverse. In other words they can't stop the jailbreaking by breaking things during the jailbreak process.
I don't need 13 pages of document to explain the location collection policies. That's ridiculous. The average consumer is going to understand this? I think not.
The simple solution Apple, is to not distribute nor collect it.
You probably don't know that he's not talking about CRTs. He's talking about flat black vs. glossy. Glossy is very reflective. Flat black is not. I personally can't understand why anyone sells glossy.
I went to Best Buy and noticed two monitors. One was $10.00 less than the other. They both looked the same design. The difference was that the flat black display was $10.00 cheaper than the glossy. I pointed out the fault to Best Buy and they changed the price of the flat black to match that of the glossy. A couple weeks later they'd changed it back.
They are talking about hardbacks, not paperbacks. Paperbacks probably still outsell everything.
This is patently false. When you understand the law, the real law, then you become an elected Judge and you hear the evidence, then you can judge Gizmodo.
Under California law most legal experts agree that Gizmodo was/is innocent and was perfectly within their rights to do exactly what they did.
It was illegal to issue the warrant and it was an abuse of power by Jobs himself to push REACT to do this investigation while their legal department must have assuredly informed them that Gizmodo was within the law, especially since they already had the phone back--and within the law means they could have destroyed the phone if they so chose.
Apple will be sued and either settle or be found guilty. Chen will make some money, which he deserves, especially when a large corporation performs like a fascist.
Apple knew Chen was a journalist. Apple also knew they had been on the loosing end of numerous other legal issues involving journalists. Apple chose this route to do an end run around the law in order to get at the journalist's protected information.
When you finally understand what a bailor and bailee is, and you understand how it applies in the Gizmodo case, then you can try to convince us, but I'm sure you'll fail as the law is pretty clear. Gizmodo and Jason Chen were within their legal rights and performed legally in all they had done. I'm not saying they were perfect angels, but the were in no way criminals and committed no criminal act.
THAT IS WHY THE WARRANT WAS OVERTURNED.
Mossberg isn't in a rural area so he doesn't know what he's missing. He's in a densely populated area. He's simply focusing on what will give him the most benefit. He disregards everyone else not in his same position.
The bars dropping are not what is at issue here. You are obfuscating the real issue, which is the dropped calls and poor data performance while touching that spot. And I often hold my iPhone with my left hand to touch the screen with my right one.
I have seen nor heard a single confirmation. And those RIM devices have been out a long time.
The return rate is actually very high for the iPhone 4 considering the duration that it has been in circulation.
Welcome to the party pal.
You are acting like a child. Gizmodo is a fine site, one of many that 10s of thousands of people visit every day for tech news. And, BTW, the warrant on Jason Chen was reversed and he was given his possessions back. That's because the EFF pointed out that those actions taken by REACT, driven by Apple, were illegal.
You are trying the strawman argument--attack the opposition with a small issue to make the bigger issue that you have seem less important.
That post is about RIM addressing Apple's accusation, which happens to be false.
http://gizmodo.com/5589962/htc-disputes-apple-cellphone-demo-with-deathgrip-video-of-its-own
As has been shown endless times while testing software, testing in controlled facilities often belies real life experiences.
Where's your head at man? The link is about RIM's response to Apple's accusation. It says that they don't have the problem Apple has and that Apple should take responsibility for (but won't).
http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/07/17/rim-co-ceos-apple/
When they are reading their tech support scripts or when they are ad hoc'ing it when the script fails them?
C) is the Internet.
Imagine years ago when you had to go to the library to look shit up to determine if it was accurate or not. I remember having subscriptions to multiple newspapers. I did that to ensure that I could get broad more accurate picture. I had to stop because they were all narrow, far too editorialized, and inaccurate. Not that the internet is that much better but at least we don't have to pay to support those buffoons spouting their feldercarb, and we can talk back in forums such as this.
He's a nightmare. To the undereducated he's the wrong influence. His "thinking for them" propagates a bad future potential for them and their children.
Women, in my experience, are the same way. Given that they believe their spouse/boy friend did something it is next to impossible to overcome that belief, even if you prove they didn't do it or that it didn't happen that way. Every relationship I've had has been that way. Even amongst the wives and girl friends of friends and relatives this seems prevalent. My latest heart throb is that way. When she believes something there's no changing her mind, regardless of whether the facts prove her wrong. Even if she admits to the facts she can't overcome the emotional tie she has to "bad" facts she believed. It can be very unfair.
If Milo can't think for himself then he's nothing close to a virtual human.