The existence of his allergies or lack thereof is irrelevant. The case should be dismissed because it is not his neighbor's resonsibility to go beyond FCC regulations in limiting radio emissions from his property. Turning off his cell phone will also do nothing about the cell towers in the area.

The guy with the allergies can take steps to block or at least seriously attenuate signals comming into his house. It may not be cheap, but since when is dealing with medical problems cheap.

He can also move to a rural area where such emissions are less in order to avoid them.

In today's job market where employers often get hundreds of resumes for a single position, the hard part is getting someone to care enough to bother contacting you at all.

It is remotely possible that an AOL email address might even benefit you it it looks out of place and brings attention to an otherwise great resume. However, more likely an overworked manager that is sick of looking at resumes is going to use it as a reason to toss your resume in the "NO" pile.

Should an AOL email address matter? No. Does it? Possibly. AOL has a stigma.

An Engineer says it doesn't matter. Someone from Marketing will says it does.

Your resume sells you, and the simple fact is a mediocre product that is well marketed usually sells better than a superior product that is marketed poorly.

The e-readers seem to do a good job at displaying text with low eye strain. However it comes at a heafty price tag for a single function device. It's like asking why people needed smart phones when two way pagers, PDAs, and simple cell phones already existed.

I don't see how such a vague reference even if it was intentional could harm the estate. It's not like there is a marketing advantage that Google would be getting from a vague reference based on a 30 year old movie based on a 40 year old novel. Even among customers that have seen Blade Runner, not many are going to remember the title of the novel it was based upon, and even fewer will remember that the android model was Nexus-6.

I can however, see the advantage of the estate trying to leverage the popularity of Google's new phone to get the name of the movie and the novel back in the media after all these years.

It's sad, but such threats of lawsuits appears to be a successful marketing ploy regardless of merit.

I guess government control is no more or less evil than any other control...

I'd would say there are some things the government does well, but having worked with and for the government most of my adult life I really can't think of any. There are however some public resources, such as the radio spectrum that need to be protected and administered in the public interest, and government is the best of the choices we have of who to to do that. So the government needs to be in charge of it. It needs to regulate it. That however doesn't mean having the government hire civil servants and beaurocrats to develop and maintain thins like a whitespace database.

Our government does employ a lot of extremely bright and talented people. However, they spend most of their time dealing with beaucracy and overseeing things from a high level. It is far more practical to have those bright people specify what is needed, and then let companies like Google come up with proposals on detailed implementations and then provide the expertise to implement them.

Let the government do what needs to be done by the government, but let privite industry provide the innovative implementations within the guidelines provided to them.

As for infrastructure... If it can be provided by private industry under what governmental regulation that is really necessary only, then let private industry build and maintain it. Let them take the risk and allow them reasonable rewards if they are successful. As foolish as corporations often are they manage to screw up far less than the government and provide a better value to customers than the government does.

The government is rarely a good solution to any problem. However, they are sometimes the only practical solution.

The Database and its administration will be paid for either directly through some form of fees or indirectly through taxes. In neither case is it free, its just a matter of who gets the bill.

It is highly unlikely the FCC is going to hire civil servants to develop and maintain such a database in any case. If they do it will take longer, cost more, and have more problems. Why? Because the government is the only entity with even more beaucracy and inefficiency than large corporations, and less direct incentive to do the job well. It is more cost effective and more sensible to contract out the work to a company that already has the technology and the people with the expertise required.

Since Google has the capabilities and the expertise they should be able to do this reasonably well. However, even if another company gets the bid, Google's proposal will at least mention issues that the government might otherwise miss. The government can only specify what they want as well as they understand the issues, and a lot of times things go badly simply because the governemtn doesn't know what they want at the begining and the requirements evolve over time.

I think is a bad idea for any OS company to rely on a third party app to properly display help files.

Removing artificial barriers to reasonable competition is one thing. Forcing bad design decisions is another.

Microsoft should not be prevented from providing a complete set of software that meets what are basically essential customer needs.

A decade ago it was much more reasonable for the court to say that browsers were not an essential part of the OS, and the fact that it took hours to download a competing browser over the internet did create a barrier to competition.

Now it is hard to say that a browser is not something people expect to come with their system to provide basic services they expect form it, and it is no longer difficult for consumers to access competing browsers that may add value for consumers.