FEAR: feeling of anxiety: an unpleasant feeling of anxiety or apprehension caused by the presence or anticipation of danger

The family of the victims of various shootings at the hands of the mentally ill would beg to differ with you as to something perceived to be a danger, and something that kills your family. There are already gun control laws, and the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee unrestricted access to any weapons a citizen might want. There are already restrictions on automatic weapons, as well as a wide range of military grade weapons, explosives, poisons, WMD's, etc. There are also restrictions on who can gain access to weapons based on criminal history, as well as location. Not one single bill being seriously discussed in congress was taking away anyone's guns, as in every case, currently owned guns were grandfathered in. The vast majority of such legislation was aimed more at sensible background checks. Something even the NRA used to support before they were against it.

Can you cite any sources whatsoever as to the cost of shutting down a park as opposed to keeping it open? Unless you handle the billing for the various public park departments, you are just parroting talking points you read online or heard on the 'news'. You are also suggesting that they just leave these parks open to the public, which would be like opening the door to your home, and going on vacation for a month, and hoping everyone was on their best behavior. The Fed is legally required to shut down any services that are payed for with discretionary funds when they are no longer legally authorized to pay for such parks to remain open. Period, end of statement. The fact that you are more concerned about some park begin shut down, rather than people being denied food, social services, life saving medicines through various studies, etc, speaks volumes about your priorities.

No one is 'ignoring' the debt ceiling, and it has been dropping steadily for the last few years. In fact, it's dropping faster than it has since the 1950's. This is probably something you might be aware of if you weren't solidly wrapped up in your fear based news network.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/22/news/economy/deficits/index.html
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-debt-load-falling-at-fastest-pace-since-1950s-2012-06-08

Just as an FYI, Benghazi was a TERRORIST ATTACK, not a 'scandal'.

Just in case you missed , it is not the government selling fear thus time (WMD Anyone?), but rather the right wing media. The left media can spin as well, but are simply outclassed by outlets such as fox, which has ingrained itself as 'mainstream'. I have friends from over seas who laugh when they hear Obama is called an extremist.

Death Panels, socialism, communism, dictators, taking your guns, scandalegate, climategate, gay armageddon, etc.

The list just goes on and on. I turn on Fox 'news' and they literally have huge flashing red warning banners about whatever talking point is on the menu for today. I hear my right wing friends whispering about the dictator in office, the Muslim friend of the 911 terrorists. The saddest part is that they truly BELIEVE these stories.

The media is far better equipped at selling fear than the government. The current crop is ripe for the picking.

The reason? It allows those who are really pulling the strings, like the big money behind every political engine, to control things in a way that makes business more profitable, regardless of the real cost.

This hasn't been my experience with Apple either. I had a Macbook Pro (17" 2008) that was affected by an issue with a bad nVidia card causing a black screen on boot up. nVidia claimed the issue did not affect my Macbook. Apple investigated and found a significant number of those Macbook owners who were affected, and warrantied the repair anyway. My Macbook Pro was 3 years out of warranty in late 2012 when I had this happen to my Macbook (it was 4 years old at the time), and Apple replace the motherboard free of charge, no questions asked. I made an appointment, brought it in, and they offered the repair to me after troubleshooting it on the counter.

I have also gone in with a missing key on a keyboard, and they replace it free of charge. I also had an iPhone fresh from the factory with markings on the case when I took it out of the box. I found this when it was shipped to my home. They replaced it with a new one, again no questions asked.

I do know that Apple always tops the satisfaction survey and has for the last decade. There's a reason for that, and it's certainly not due to poor service.

Requiring cross licensing as a condition of licensing a FRAND would violate the (F)air and (Reasonable) piece of the puzzle. By their very nature, only one company can own a patent, so every person wanting to license FRAND patents can't offer the same cross licensing. Allowing a FRAND owner to pick and choose the cross licensed patents they require in order to license a FRAND patent is by it's very nature, anticompetitive. Although a company might opt to cross license, it cannot be made a condition of licensing a FRAND patent.

It would require a company surrender any competitive via surrendering their standard patents in order to cross license FRAND patents. This is exactly what Samsung was doing. Samsung was slapped down for extorting from competitors via it's FRAND patents in order for them to enter the market.

I have to agree there. Patent law as it applies to an inventor as opposed to a corporation, which is lifeless, and potentially very long lived (read: centuries), has twisted the original intent of a patent and it's purpose. As to governments taking a FRAND patent from the owner, it would also discourage any company from entering their patents as FRAND patents. This is done voluntarily now. If a government forced a company to surrender such patents, then the industry overall would suffer.

Misguided android fanboi defenses aside, a FRAND patent is an entirely different animal. Samsung was demanding cross licensing of choice non-frand patents from competitors in order to license FRAND, and they were caught, and reprimanded. This I agree with completely. They were also caught with confidential court documents, leveraging the licensing info in them against competitors. You would do better to choose a better cause to champion. They are hardly the industry leader in exceptional and above-board behavior.

The Apple hate has grown to the point where they are marking satire as 'informative'? Seriously? I would expect my parents to fall for something like this. Any /. user that does needs to hand in their geek card.

Actually no, he's sending a clear message that a company trying to extort unfair terms in order to grant license to a companies FRAND patents sets a bad precedent, and undermines the very reason for a FRAND patent. It forces those entering into a competitive market to give up too much, often times with cross patents that allow a new company to offer unique features that differentiate it from a competitor. A FRAND patent on the other hand is required by every competitor in that market and should be offered to all under the same terms.

Apple was not offered a 'fair and reasonable' request from Samsung for it's FRAND patents. Samsung was demanding cross licensing of key Apple patents in order to grant Apple access to these FRAND patents. Rather than simply charging a standard rate, Samsung saw some unique patents that Apple had and made them a condition of cross licensing their own FRAND patents.

The President was fully justified in overturning this specific import ban for that reason. If such extortion was allowed, you and I would be paying substantially higher costs for just about anything with a FRAND patent associated with it. It raises the bar to entering into a competitive field where a company could be forced to give away any competitive edge they had in 'regular' patents, just to gain access to industry essential patents.

If you can't see the forest for the trees due to some obsessive fanboi-ism, then there is no help for you.

There was an import ban on iPhones because Samsung won such a ban using FRAND patents, and the President overturned that ban based on that fact. It set a dangerous precedent and weaken's the FRAND patent and it's ability to allow anyone to enter into a competitive field.

The reverse that the summary so easily ignores is that the patents that Samsung infringed on, and were banned with as a result, are garden variety infringements, and don't require a response.

You do realize that this is a battery operated device, and that such 'tweaking' dramatically impacts that battery life. Couple that with them not reporting the actual battery life while running the GPU/CPU coverclocked, and you are essentially lying out of you eye teeth.

Sniffing for junk isn't the same as reading for ads. As was mentioned above, simply scanning an email for pre-matched content doesn't require that you extract that data, and store it offline for an ad profile. This is NOT the same thing.

When it comes to ads, Google is extracting that info and storing it to build a marketing profile. A virus scanner or junk mail scanner just looks for keywords, and if it finds them, it rejects them or performs whatever action it's designed to take.

The Anandtech link that rsborg posted alone is worth it's own /. article. A VERY interesting read.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review

Head, meat tinfoil. Tinfoil, head...

They already keep a fingerprint database. Passport? Fingerprinted. There are also 4 states that require fingerprinting for a drivers license (California, Colorado, Georgia, and Texas). Those 4 states make up about 1/4 of the entire U.S. population. People getting general assistance (GA) have also been required to give fingerprints since 1996. The same is true for many criminal history checks. Work in a government job? Fingerprinted. Teachers, Food Service workers? Fingerprinted. Foster parents? Ditto. Law enforcement, Judicial positions, handgun permits, etc. The list goes on and on.

Chances are good that you are already in a database somewhere. The same hysteria surrounded video surveillance, which is widespread. The fact that you leave your fingerprints everywhere would tend to make them less of a illegal search issue, and more of a gray area as they are often used as a simple means of identification these days.

Technically it's all of Season 5. The last season is not considered part of Season 5, but rather it's called the Final Season.

Amazon, Google, Apple, are all selling it this way, as defined by AMC. Just because you think that 'Season 5' should include 16 episodes means nothing. AMC defines what a season of the show is compiled and sold as, and they have two seasons: "Season 5" and "The Final Season".

Since Apple does not define what is in a season of the show, they have met their obligation with the season pass. It gave this person access to the entire Season 5, which AMC defined as 8 episodes, and Apple delivered.

I'm betting this lawsuit will go no where.

To be fair, anyone willing to take advice from a geek, who lives in his basement in a bathrobe, probably deserves the end result.

It does nothing but serve his ego (and yes I know I will get flamed for this). There are valid reasons to keep things civil on the surface. Claiming we should just 'let it all out' in a professional environment is obviously not the way that the rest of the professional world has gone, with good reason. It's called acting like an adult, and most professionals learned to do so at an early age.

Linus should not be held to some different standard.

A good example of cooperation between intelligence communities:

http://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-nsas-high-tech-surveillance-helped-europeans-catch-terrorists

Does this mean everything they do is great? Of course not. Does it mean it doesn't require higher scrutiny. Of course not, but it has proven to be effective. There is no reason they can't find a happy middle ground.

The type of information Snowden is leaking just makes this type of cooperation more difficult to achieve. Political realities will make this type of communication much more difficult to even approach for a politician.