It's pretty common knowledge, though, that any time The Sun says "anonymous source" they actually mean "made up by a newsdesk monkey". This is one of the UK tabloids that specialises in invading people's privacy as a matter of course, but suddenly, whenever they need a juicy quote to incite a reaction, they're all about protecting the integrity of their sources.
I completely agree about the egotism of many doctors, or the attitude that they see their job as treating the illness rather than informing the patient - I have both first hand experience of this (lots of time in hospital as a kid and a partner who is a nurse). Having said that, this is just indicative of the wider problem that the attitude of doctors generally stinks (there are some great doctors of course, but either I've been incredibly unlucky in my dealings with them, or the good ones are woefully under represented in the numbers employed), and this initiative isn't likely to improve on that at all. I don't know what the answer is, but it's certainly not forcing them to be "courteous" on a form, that's just going to further entrench the attitude issues - you only have to read the comments of the doctor in the summary to see that happening already - and possibly put patient welfare at risk (not to mention wasting money at a time when managers are just looking for an excuse to slash costs).
It's enforceable if paying what the contract says would cost an individual customer less than hiring a lawyer to get a judge to declare it unenforceable.
That's only true where it's worth the company's time and money to pursue you for defaulting on the contract when they know that their change of terms likely rendered it unenforcable.
Given that, and the fact that they already went through this with iPhones, if you're correct and they're just trying to find the sweet spot in terms of service level/infrastructure costs, why the hell would they announce unlimited data at the launch of yet another big Apple product? Wouldn't the sensible approach be to announce a much smaller package, then ramp that up as they discover what the uptake/spare capacity is? No, this was nothing more than a cynical move to piggyback some free publicity on the back of the huge marketing machine that is Apple, then snatch the offer away as soon as everyone's attention is diverted.
At some point wireless networks will have capacity that far exceeds demand, and the carriers will collapse into a price war
We're still waiting for wired connections where capacity exceeds demand, and it's not for wont of the appropriate technologies, is because the big corporations have sliced up the markets and are busy gouging customers instead of improving services.
Garnering massive amounts of free publicity about your revolutionary new data plans, then dropping them without similar fanfare a couple of months later sounds a little underhand, you have to admit. There's no way this was a short term decision, they must have known about this in advance, the least these companies can do is be honest - most people resent the fact that it seems like they're being gamed more than they resent the changes themselves, and I know it's naive and that's just the way the world works, but it doesn't mean doesn't royally suck.
The phone is a status symbol, the data package should just be a data package. I should be able to buy one data package and use it on whatever device I want, it doesn't suddenly become a prestige service just because I use it on one device over another. If I buy a new TV, I don't expect to pay different delivery rates depending on whether it's a no-name or a premium brand.
Do you have a link for this or some details on how to enable it? My other half is on Orange and it would be useful to have the option of tethering, but everything I've seen online states that Orange charge for a "tethering bundle", which you have to buy in addition to the data bundle. Unfortunately I couldn't find any information about this bundle on their website, so I'm none the wiser to whether this is true or not (although I have seen a lot of different sites/ people on forums making the same claim, but it only seemed to appear from around November last year onwards, so maybe it's a new charge). If you do need a bundle even though you're already paying for the data then it's not exactly free, as far as I'm concerned if I pay for a certain amount of data I should be able to use that data on whatever device I want - and with the speeds of mobile internet, it's not like anyone's going to be tethering for the fun of it.
Suppose that throughput is limited for physical reasons. Then there's really no way an ISP could "make sure that those particular customers get at least what's advertised" short of providing upgraded infrastructure.
You're assuming fixing the infrastructure is the only option, how about fixing the advertising? People are generally happy to live with the limits of their technologies, what they're less happy about is that they often feel they've at least been misled, if not outright lied to by the advertising. I know I'm pretty tired of every ad being "get up to X" or "unlimited Y (subject to FUP of Z, where Z is incredibly limiting)". Just tell me in plain english what I'm paying for and what I'm likely to receive and I'll decide if I'm happy with that or need to pay more for a better level of service.
A pity, really, because the people who do have legitimate reasons for downloading large volumes of data probably get the worst deal. A lot of ISPs give a speed boost to the first X amount of traffic and then throttle anything above that, so regular web browsing appears fast but try to download a big file, or maintain a longer connection (for gaming, etc) and you'll find performance drops off greatly. By the looks of it, the kind of people who would benefit most from the results of this test are the kind of people least likely to participate.
Of course, if you force them to go through the hassle of getting a warrant, and meanwhile they catch you disposing of all that legitimate equipment (because you don't want to be implicated in something you didn't do), it definitely looks like you're guilty, so you're pretty much damned if you do and damned if you don't.
How would we know, until its light reaches us? Nothing can travel faster than light, not even knowledge.
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." ~ Pratchett
What would have been useful is a card which could be "upgraded" to show both passport and driver's license details, so you just pay for the one card (which functions as basic ID) and then you pay a nominal bolt on fee for the others (still going through the usual processes to attain them first), and that way you don't have to remember all your cards or pay several government departments when you change address/name/etc (or when you initially buy the card), young people still get a government backed means to identify themselves but one that doesn't become useless when they get a driver's license/passport. That system, minus the database, would make the cards worth having (they could maybe link it into other systems too, banking, etc - I'd really like to have one card I could use everywhere and not have to carry around a wallet full of plastic, I guess it would be a major hassle if you ever lost it, mind...)
He didn't say cost was an issue, he said it was a colossal waste of money. Just because we (and India) can afford it, doesn't mean it's a good idea or that it's not a huge waste of money better spent elsewhere.
That being the case, why didn't the Labour government declare their intention to do the same as an easy win prior to the election? If they'd got in, they'd be able to use the "saving public money in dire times" argument, and if (as happened) they lost they could use the "they're just stealing our ideas" argument.
Don't they expire after 10 years or something? In any event you're forced to get a photo one if you ever change address, change your name or just lose your old one, so it's only a matter of time.
Well, he also designed Hexic that comes installed on every 360, so maybe a two-hit wonder (although that would depend on how well the game would sell without Microsoft's sponsorship I guess!)
Well they can pull your game, and they can probably severely hamper your revenue stream by doing so, but you can still promote/sell the game via other means on the Android platform, so they can't completely cut off your revenue if you can convince people to jump through the additional hoop required to get your game.
The big deal is that they used the DMCA take down notice route to have these removed. The DMCA only covers copyright, not trademarks, so the fact that they own the trademark is irrelevant (and if I understand the argument, they can't claim copyright on the gameplay aspects meaning they have no copyright claim under DMCA, meaning it was wrongly used).
Looking at the names associated with them, it seems like a handful of people are basically just skinning the same game using whatever copyrighted mascot is flavour of the month. They probably don't care about the take down notice as they'll already be skinning the latest iteration.
There's definitely much wrong with this situation. Google should allow you to put it back if you file a counter-claim.
I'm not so sure about this. No company is ordered by law to provide your goods or services for sale, so Google are perfectly within their rights to pull the game for whatever reason they choose. If they re-instate it on the basis of your counter claim and then the original claimants win, they will be jointly liable for damages, if they don't re-instate it then they can't suffer any ill effect (and if you win they can re-instate it without fear of litigation). It's common where there are legal disputes of this kind to suspend distribution until the legal questions are answered.
Well, that's a different matter and it's specifically not the question you asked:) Having said that, if you've created something others might enjoy and a company is, without authority, taking that away, of course you have the right to complain. Stopping isn't an issue, you can complain about their behaviour and work on new things at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty common knowledge, though, that any time The Sun says "anonymous source" they actually mean "made up by a newsdesk monkey". This is one of the UK tabloids that specialises in invading people's privacy as a matter of course, but suddenly, whenever they need a juicy quote to incite a reaction, they're all about protecting the integrity of their sources.
I completely agree about the egotism of many doctors, or the attitude that they see their job as treating the illness rather than informing the patient - I have both first hand experience of this (lots of time in hospital as a kid and a partner who is a nurse). Having said that, this is just indicative of the wider problem that the attitude of doctors generally stinks (there are some great doctors of course, but either I've been incredibly unlucky in my dealings with them, or the good ones are woefully under represented in the numbers employed), and this initiative isn't likely to improve on that at all. I don't know what the answer is, but it's certainly not forcing them to be "courteous" on a form, that's just going to further entrench the attitude issues - you only have to read the comments of the doctor in the summary to see that happening already - and possibly put patient welfare at risk (not to mention wasting money at a time when managers are just looking for an excuse to slash costs).
nor is it enforceable.
It's enforceable if paying what the contract says would cost an individual customer less than hiring a lawyer to get a judge to declare it unenforceable.
That's only true where it's worth the company's time and money to pursue you for defaulting on the contract when they know that their change of terms likely rendered it unenforcable.
Given that, and the fact that they already went through this with iPhones, if you're correct and they're just trying to find the sweet spot in terms of service level/infrastructure costs, why the hell would they announce unlimited data at the launch of yet another big Apple product? Wouldn't the sensible approach be to announce a much smaller package, then ramp that up as they discover what the uptake/spare capacity is? No, this was nothing more than a cynical move to piggyback some free publicity on the back of the huge marketing machine that is Apple, then snatch the offer away as soon as everyone's attention is diverted.
At some point wireless networks will have capacity that far exceeds demand, and the carriers will collapse into a price war
We're still waiting for wired connections where capacity exceeds demand, and it's not for wont of the appropriate technologies, is because the big corporations have sliced up the markets and are busy gouging customers instead of improving services.
Garnering massive amounts of free publicity about your revolutionary new data plans, then dropping them without similar fanfare a couple of months later sounds a little underhand, you have to admit. There's no way this was a short term decision, they must have known about this in advance, the least these companies can do is be honest - most people resent the fact that it seems like they're being gamed more than they resent the changes themselves, and I know it's naive and that's just the way the world works, but it doesn't mean doesn't royally suck.
The phone is a status symbol, the data package should just be a data package. I should be able to buy one data package and use it on whatever device I want, it doesn't suddenly become a prestige service just because I use it on one device over another. If I buy a new TV, I don't expect to pay different delivery rates depending on whether it's a no-name or a premium brand.
Do you have a link for this or some details on how to enable it? My other half is on Orange and it would be useful to have the option of tethering, but everything I've seen online states that Orange charge for a "tethering bundle", which you have to buy in addition to the data bundle. Unfortunately I couldn't find any information about this bundle on their website, so I'm none the wiser to whether this is true or not (although I have seen a lot of different sites/ people on forums making the same claim, but it only seemed to appear from around November last year onwards, so maybe it's a new charge). If you do need a bundle even though you're already paying for the data then it's not exactly free, as far as I'm concerned if I pay for a certain amount of data I should be able to use that data on whatever device I want - and with the speeds of mobile internet, it's not like anyone's going to be tethering for the fun of it.
Suppose that throughput is limited for physical reasons. Then there's really no way an ISP could "make sure that those particular customers get at least what's advertised" short of providing upgraded infrastructure.
You're assuming fixing the infrastructure is the only option, how about fixing the advertising? People are generally happy to live with the limits of their technologies, what they're less happy about is that they often feel they've at least been misled, if not outright lied to by the advertising. I know I'm pretty tired of every ad being "get up to X" or "unlimited Y (subject to FUP of Z, where Z is incredibly limiting)". Just tell me in plain english what I'm paying for and what I'm likely to receive and I'll decide if I'm happy with that or need to pay more for a better level of service.
A pity, really, because the people who do have legitimate reasons for downloading large volumes of data probably get the worst deal. A lot of ISPs give a speed boost to the first X amount of traffic and then throttle anything above that, so regular web browsing appears fast but try to download a big file, or maintain a longer connection (for gaming, etc) and you'll find performance drops off greatly. By the looks of it, the kind of people who would benefit most from the results of this test are the kind of people least likely to participate.
Of course, if you force them to go through the hassle of getting a warrant, and meanwhile they catch you disposing of all that legitimate equipment (because you don't want to be implicated in something you didn't do), it definitely looks like you're guilty, so you're pretty much damned if you do and damned if you don't.
How would we know, until its light reaches us? Nothing can travel faster than light, not even knowledge.
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." ~ Pratchett
What would have been useful is a card which could be "upgraded" to show both passport and driver's license details, so you just pay for the one card (which functions as basic ID) and then you pay a nominal bolt on fee for the others (still going through the usual processes to attain them first), and that way you don't have to remember all your cards or pay several government departments when you change address/name/etc (or when you initially buy the card), young people still get a government backed means to identify themselves but one that doesn't become useless when they get a driver's license/passport. That system, minus the database, would make the cards worth having (they could maybe link it into other systems too, banking, etc - I'd really like to have one card I could use everywhere and not have to carry around a wallet full of plastic, I guess it would be a major hassle if you ever lost it, mind...)
Worse for the people who just shelled out £300 on a HIPs pack to sell their house right before the new government announced they were being canned.
He didn't say cost was an issue, he said it was a colossal waste of money. Just because we (and India) can afford it, doesn't mean it's a good idea or that it's not a huge waste of money better spent elsewhere.
That being the case, why didn't the Labour government declare their intention to do the same as an easy win prior to the election? If they'd got in, they'd be able to use the "saving public money in dire times" argument, and if (as happened) they lost they could use the "they're just stealing our ideas" argument.
Don't they expire after 10 years or something? In any event you're forced to get a photo one if you ever change address, change your name or just lose your old one, so it's only a matter of time.
I've been debt free my whole life, so technically I'm paying the interest on everyone else's debt, you insensitive clod!
Well, he also designed Hexic that comes installed on every 360, so maybe a two-hit wonder (although that would depend on how well the game would sell without Microsoft's sponsorship I guess!)
Well they can pull your game, and they can probably severely hamper your revenue stream by doing so, but you can still promote/sell the game via other means on the Android platform, so they can't completely cut off your revenue if you can convince people to jump through the additional hoop required to get your game.
The big deal is that they used the DMCA take down notice route to have these removed. The DMCA only covers copyright, not trademarks, so the fact that they own the trademark is irrelevant (and if I understand the argument, they can't claim copyright on the gameplay aspects meaning they have no copyright claim under DMCA, meaning it was wrongly used).
Looking at the names associated with them, it seems like a handful of people are basically just skinning the same game using whatever copyrighted mascot is flavour of the month. They probably don't care about the take down notice as they'll already be skinning the latest iteration.
There's definitely much wrong with this situation. Google should allow you to put it back if you file a counter-claim.
I'm not so sure about this. No company is ordered by law to provide your goods or services for sale, so Google are perfectly within their rights to pull the game for whatever reason they choose. If they re-instate it on the basis of your counter claim and then the original claimants win, they will be jointly liable for damages, if they don't re-instate it then they can't suffer any ill effect (and if you win they can re-instate it without fear of litigation). It's common where there are legal disputes of this kind to suspend distribution until the legal questions are answered.
Well, that's a different matter and it's specifically not the question you asked :) Having said that, if you've created something others might enjoy and a company is, without authority, taking that away, of course you have the right to complain. Stopping isn't an issue, you can complain about their behaviour and work on new things at the same time.
Complaining about someone's lack of originality while supporting their right to be unoriginal aren't mutually exclusive.