Twitter underneath the interface can't be that complex. The two hard parts would seem to be the search function (given keywords, find relevant tweets or accounts to follow) and filtering out the spambots (I'd love to have a big enough unfiltered dataset to see how Bayesian filtering would work on it, and I wonder if just a delay between sign-up and activation (ie. you sign up today, your account will be approved and activated tomorrow) would be enough to discourage them).
Thought: apply an old solution. Force the state governments to fund 2 offices for prosecution and defense. An accused who cannot afford an attorney gets to pick which office will handle his defense, with the other office handling the prosecution (if the accused can afford his own attorney, the state can assign prosecution to whichever office they want). Any crossing-over between the offices during a case would result in a mandatory dismissal with prejudice of all charges. The problem should solve itself after that.
More people need to remember a rule of thumb from the BBS days: leave replies in the drafts folder overnight, don't send them until you've had a chance the next day to edit them for sanity. That saved many people a whole lot of embarrassment over the years.
"Subscriber's name and telephone number, contact list, address book, calendar, date book entries, group list, speed dial list, phone configuration information and settings, incoming and outgoing draft sent, deleted text messages, saved, opened, unopened draft sent and deleted electronic mail messages, mobile instant message chat logs and contact information mobile Internet browser and saved and deleted photographs on an Apple iPhone, silver and black, green soft rubber case.
The warrant did authorize the search of photos, and didn't restrict them to just those attached to text messages. As far as the photo showing the suspect with the gun and jacket, if you had a warrant to search someone's home and found a gun and that same jacket they'd certainly be admissible as evidence. They aren't conclusive proof that it was the suspect, but they're certainly evidence that he did in fact have the items needed to be the right person. The attempt here seems to be that not even a warrant is enough to search a smartphone, which I disagree with.
I'd be more interested in a point that's glossed over or ignored: the details of the evidence the police submitted in support of the warrant application pointing to it being the defendant who sent the text messages as opposed to someone else.
Because putting it into the public domain would've allowed any record label to pick them up and lock them away behind a compilation copyright on an album, and no copyright holder can change the length of the copyright term written into the law. Oddly, the only way to do this is the way open-source software does it: retain the copyright but with very generous license terms.
Their controllers say Zigbee Light link protocol 1.0 certified. If the firmware update renders the controllers incompatible with Zigbee Light link protocol 1.0 (ie. will not interoperate with bulbs using that protocol), that's a manufacturing defect. I'd simply return the defective controllers to where you bought them and request a refund (a replacement isn't acceptable since Philips has made it clear all of their controllers are or will be rendered defective). Sorting out the defective merchandise with the manufacturer is the store's problem.
The store will probably balk at refunding your money. Your state Attorney General's office would probably appreciate reports of stores refusing to accept returns of defective merchandise, seeing as various warranty and consumer-protection laws require them to.
You won't be any worse off than you were, and you've caused financial and legal pain for people Philips has a harder time ignoring.
I'm waiting for a box that'll a) scan for drone control signals or the signal of the video feed back to the controller, and b) use a directional antenna to send a higher-powered signal to the drone commanding it to go into a max-power vertical descent.
I'd like to see a ruling saying "Yes mugshots should be publicly available. However, entities providing [i]incorrect[/i] information about persons arrested and charged, even where only implied, are still liable for that information. If an entity publishes the mugshot of a person who was subsequently found not guilty or had the charges dismissed without making that fact at least as prominent on the mugshot as the mugshot itself, that entity has committed libel and has been criminally negligent in allowing the incorrect information to persist.". That should make most of those sites drop the whole thing rather than take on that kind of liability.
Perhaps the FCC should require phone systems to provide the ANI data to the receiving party instead of or in addition to CID. CID may be spoofable, but ANI's used for billing and very few originating phone systems are going to allow forging of billing information.
Random selection. You have a list of arbitrators, each party chooses 5 from the list (presumably based on their decision record and reputation). Then one is chosen at random to handle the case. Arbitrators have as much incentive to favor the individual as the company, and neither side can stack the deck in their favor. Neither side is allowed to reject the arbitrator after they've been chosen. I'd bet that arbitration suddenly becomes a lot less popular with companies.
We see some batshit-insane stuff out of individual plaintiffs and massive footgun maneuvers out of corporate plaintiffs vs. small defendants, but for truly epic-scale stupidity (the kind that makes for tales that could've been written by Doc Smith and that'll still be told an age from now) you need two massive, implacable bureaucracies set on a collision course.
Keep the app up, just have it email the dispute letter to the user and let them mail/FAX it in. Let the city try to argue that people are entitled to dispute the tickets but they aren't entitled to use the city's process for disputing a ticket. Even local judges aren't going to fall for that one.
Reading what the lawyers actually said, it's LG's claim that 'integer' has the ordinary meaning that's nonsense. The patent is talking about "an integer multiple of the transmission time interval", symbolically "n * TTI". While a negative multiple is mathematically possible, when dealing with data transmission it's excluded (if you transmit packet 1 and then packet 2, packet 2 can't be transmitted at a time prior to packet 1's transmission). Similarly for a zero multipler, a device can't normally transmit 2 packets at the same time (and if it can, that's explicitly spelled out which it isn't here). And as for n=1, the patent owner's lawyers note that the exact phrase in the patent specification is "The MAC-e PDU is sent to the physical layer every n*TTI, instead of once every transmission time interval (TTI).". That logically excludes n=1, since that would make the transmission once every TTI and the patent's talking about sending it at some interval other than every TTI.
So yes, it's clear from the language of the patent that they're talking about an integer n where n is greater than 1.
"Your ISP does not wish to carry traffic from Google on their network. Per their wishes, we are not sending traffic into your ISP's network. If you wish to receive traffic from Google, please contact your ISP about allowing traffic from Google."
The problem there is that any company wanting to market another version has to either prove their version is identical to Daraprim (right down to the impurities, by chemical analysis and comparison of the results to those from Daraprim) or go through the entire FDA approval process as a new formulation. And Shkreli locked down distribution of Daraprim so competitors can't get samples of it for the comparison (which is also making the FDA unhappy on top of everything else).
I think it's not that Smith got a warrant, but that the warrant was not supported by probable cause and Smith included no evidence in his application for the warrant to support a finding of probable cause. The second half of the 4th Amendment says that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause".