I still haven't figured out what everyone's issue with the wifi data was? It was the digital equivalent of getting mad that you were shouting into you cell phone in your front yard and someone passing by remembered a small bit of your conversation...
Grabbing a small amount of WPA2 data isn't enough to do anything. You need a few sets of handshake data at least. This is unlikely to happen in the short time google was driving by.
By the way, no I don't care at all if google knows where my AP is, or has some encrypted data from it. Now if they park a van in my parking lot for a day or 2, and it turns out that they are harvesting data, then maybe I'll be concerned.
Hmm... So why is it that there are only two allowed service providers in my city? comcast and Century link. The only reason there are two is that CenturyLink (qwest) got a monopoly on telephone lines, and comcast on cable TV. Then each used that infrastructure to provide internet.
What I feel should happen is that the actual wires be owned by a heavily regulated not-for-profit (somewhat like the power and water companies), and then the ISPs can use that wire/line/fiber/etc to provide me with internet. Yes this would mean that I would likely have 2 bills, one for the line, and one for the ISP.
I'm not quite sure how to incentive-ise the line owner, but it's a work in progress.
Not always, maybe the rest of the device will be value engineered to make up the difference. I'm sure most of the low hanging fruit is long been picked, but save a few pennies here and there and it'll add up some.
Also Apples prices have never seemed to reflect any sort of consistent margin on the hardware, so it is possible that they like the devices pricing for some other reason and are willing to accept a smaller margin.
we could still have a trial with a jury, even if it wasn't a jury of randomly selection people. How about software patent cases should have a jury of 12 random professional programmers in the same space as the patent covers. So for example, 12 consumer device software programmers in this case for the software patents and 12 different jurors for the physical design patents, those that work in the mechanical design of portable consumer devices.
from what i have read neither party is violating the contract (not that any of us have a copy of that). If the contract is written to allow DF to block all activity by UMG then they are within the contract (strictly speaking). They may not be honoring the spirit of that clause, as it may have been put there more for things like UMG wanting to license it to a group of nutters that are trying to take over the world and enslave the rest of us to use as their theme song, but hey if the contract doesn't specify conditions under which that clause can be used seems like it would be fair game to me.
If there was a clause that "the copyright could not be transfered and it had to be the position of the flesh and blood person or persons who did the creating. The only allowed transferal of a right shall be the right to distribution and shall not be forcibly exclusive to the party granted that right and for a period of no more than 3 years between renewals". It would probably help out the artists, they could still by gentleman's agreement allow exclusive distribution, but if something new or better comes along they could extend distribution rights to that new something.
not only that but if they are listining in, don't they lose common carrier protections? and are therefore liable for the content on thier networks, things like thepiratbay.org/infringed_on_movies/. etc?