Android already does this. The OS has a set of permissions available for apps (get location data, use camera, access internet, etc.) These permissions are displayed to the user when the app is installed, giving the user the chance to reject the app if the permissions are unacceptable.
.. Sitting around and coming up with wild ideas that might be possible and writing patents on them and then waiting for someone else to do the 90% work before suing them is a very bad taste for the people who really did the work.
What makes this even worse is that the guy who "reinvented" the patented idea in most cases does not even know the patent exists in the first place. The courts have the legal fiction that the knowledge in the patents is in the public domain, but in practice this is not just the case -- especially when a defendant has a disincentive to willfully infringe a patent (better remain ignorant and avoid extra damages). Perhaps we need a system where the patent owner had an affirmative duty to publicize the patent.
Claiming copyright on something you don't own carries criminal penalties of a minimum of 5 years in prison plus quite a big fine.
Unfortunately, you need to convince an overworked federal prosecutor with other fish to fry to take the case.
In a reasonable world, the inland "border" searches would be limited to those individuals whom the Border Patrol has reasonable suspicion to believe has recently entered the country and/or attempted to evade a search at the actual border.
If they have no reason to believe I have been out of the country or an conspiring to smuggle contraband, then in a just world, they should not be able to search me. The rules would need to be written to allow then to search someone never left the US, but picked up a package of contraband that someone else moved across the border (perhaps by catapult). Other than those cases that actually involve the border DHS should have no authority.
Meanwhile the iPad has no moving parts, therefor it will work forever, or until you use it as a shield or weapon. The Surface Pro, Macbook Air, and Retina Macbook Pro will only work until the fans get jammed with dust, dirt, cat hair, human hair, etc. With my now 7 year old laptop, that happened at least every 3 months. Smaller fans mean it's more difficult to clean. At least with a full size laptop I have the option of inserting the compressed air nozzle down the ram upgrade panel and blowing the dust out. Until the fans get gummed up (which happened at the end of it's extended warranty) this can be done.
Intel needs a mobile part that is HEATSINK-ONLY, no fan. Until then, ARM parts are the only option.
Unfortunately the lithium-ion battery in the iPad will wear out in 3-5 years.
Without class actions, how can a company be punished for, for example, cheating a million people out of $10 each?
I suppose that the government could step in, but a class action has the advantage of providing a market-based solution to the problem. A greedy law firm can determine that the payoff will be profitable, and then invest their own resources to punish the offender. The fear of being on the receiving end of a suit helps keep big corporations in line, and this explains why they hate them so much.
Here in America we jail people just for making bad movies!
The fact that we don't jail people for making bad movies is the reason that there have been riots around the Muslim world the past week. Many of the people in those countries just cannot comprehend that the government can do nothing about the film other then issuing statements.
I don't think it's that they are trying to nickel and dime you. I think they were trying to reduce cost of the base OS, by not including the licensing fees for MPEG2.
If so, that may be a good thing if it exposes end users to the patent craziness that is screwing up the industry. As the best way to get rid of a bad law is to strictly enforce it, unbundling the MPEG licenses will annoy end users.
The point needs to be made that, absent probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion, the police/government has no authority to track anyone. So instead of you and I "hoping" that they can't follow us without a good reason (and thus, by extension, "hoping" that they won't abuse the privilege), they are first required to have a good reason before being allowed to follow us.
I was referring to that case where a police officer follows someone out in the open, on public streets. In that case, the cops have as much freedom of movement as anyone else does. If they were to trespass on private property, or take any other action that would be illegal for a normal civilian to take (wiretaps, access to any non-public corporate data, tampering with someone vehicle to attach a tracking device, etc.) then yes, they should have to get a warrant.
They never needed a warrant to "tail" a guy driving round in his car, or "shadow" him walking down the street, so why need one to tail/shadow a cellphone? I don't think any of these events is unreasonable.
The best argument against this is that trailing a person requires resources (the cop), and has an opportunity cost for the police. They are not going to tail someone without a (hopefully good) reason. If, on the other hand, they engage in mass surveillance with minimal cost cost per victim, that eliminates the cost for the police to engage in such behavior.
The Arduino Uno does have a CE mark. Look at the picture of the back of the board.
I don't know it is required, but it does have it
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
