Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
That being that the sudents are the paying customers, and barring negatively impacting other students (paying customers) why/how can the school dictate how a student (paying customer) utilizes the offered service?
While I do understand that there are always those that can/will be a distraction to others, those cases should be a case by case basis.
If it's someone's choice to goof off during class, that will be reflected in their work while those who are paying attention will do well.
On Wednesday, the FTC sued Intel alleging the chipmaker engaged in a decade-long campaign to stifle competition and strengthen its dominant position in the microchip market.
The allegations relate to whether Intel coerced computer manufacturers through pricing schemes and mirror earlier allegations by other antitrust bodies, except for the addition of complaints related to the graphics chips now found in more and more computers.
Link to Original Source
The trial court admitted the call records and phone numbers, citing a 2007 federal court decision that found that a cell phone is similar to a closed container found on a suspect and therefore subject to search without a warrant. Smith was convicted of all charges and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
A state appeals court upheld the trial ruling in a 2-1 decision. The dissenting judge based his opposition on a different federal court case, which found that a cell phone is not a ''container'' as the term had been used previously.
It sounds to me as if the article itself is worded ackwardly.
later in the article Supreme Court Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger is quoted saying:
''We do not agree with this comparison, which ignores the unique nature of cell phones,'' Lanzinger wrote. ''Objects falling under the banner of 'closed container' have traditionally been physical objects capable of holding other physical objects. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has stated that in this situation, 'container' means 'any object capable of holding another object.'
''Even the more basic models of modern cell phones are capable of storing a wealth of digitized information wholly unlike any physical object found within a closed container,''
A simple solution to the everyday person should be to use the pin feature available in most, if not all, modern cell phones to prevent _casual_ inspection by anyone who picked up your device.
Either there are microorganisms living in the Martian soil that are producing methane gas as a by-product of their metabolic processes, or methane is being produced as a by-product of reactions between volcanic rock and water.
I think that it would be really exciting to find the first possibility true, and there's ample precedent for it here on earth.
I am truly interested in seeing the results of the proposed data analysis, if it were ever possible.
Not really sure how this would offend a modder or how it would seem inappropriate enough to rate losing karma over. Anyone care to enlighten me?
I do like the slowly lowering of the termination fee month over month, not sure if that warrants doubling the initial amount though.
The charging for "even one kilobyte--is billed as 1MB" sounds really shady to me and would make me question my carrier, no matter who it was at the time.
I do feel that the article is somewhat disjointed though, as it goes from discussing termination fees for smart phones (which often have data plans) to data charges on all the other phones to the point of mentioning how most of the non-smart phones have dedicated keys for some form of web access.
Two interesting points, poorly constructed transition from one to the next..