I'd much rather see the headline "pro-gamers get their hands on the steam controller and approve" than anything else. Especially any that use the claw or hammer grips (aka keeping a finger on the a b x y buttons at all times). Game developers aren't necessarily known for being good at their games.
EVERY contract is a restraint of trade. A restraint is only part of what is needed to be illegal. You also need either an agreement that unreasonably restrains competition under Sherman act section 1 (such as a horizontal agreement to split up the market or price fix), or a restraint using monopoly power under Sherman act section 2. An exclusivity agreement not to sell android code unless it comes from Google is not a violation of either section.
If you read the whole section he didn't say he would do nothing about it because China was worse. He said that there are better ways to fix it than taxing carbon emissions in America. What would our corporate overlords do if there was a Cap and Trade tax? They would dodge the tax, like they dodge any tax they can, by moving their operations elsewhere, in this case, out of America. A tax on just American operations would have no net decrease in emissions.
Can a person fail the turing test for being too dumb to create a description that most people on slashdot can understand?
Interesting to think about whether the Fourth Amendment applies here. The Fourth Amendment only protects us from government action. This non-profit would be considered a private person, whom are only covered when they are acting in their capacity as an agent of the government. This is determined by the level of government involvement in the situation and the totality of the circumstances. I'm not a lawyer, but based on the facts here it seems like this non-profit would be considered an agent of the government, and therefore you may not be able to sue them for money damages, but the material they collect probably cannot be used as evidence in a crime.
This probably had something to do with it. Verizon found a way to buy as much spectrum as they wanted while jumping through way less regulation hurdles. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/12/verizon-buys-up-spectrum/2/
ShiftyOne (1594705) writes "In case there wasn't already a reason for wanting net neutrality, the latest rumor for the delay of the Galaxy Prime is a dispute between Google and Verizon over whether Google Wallet will be allowed on their new flagship device. Verizon has partnered with Isis to bring its own payment system to their network. Under the current FCC net neutrality rules, mobile broadband providers may not block websites, or applications that compete with their voice and video telephony services, but the rules do not explicitly block discrimination against of services that do not compete in voice and video. Whether this rumor is true or not, it is evident that this type of exclusion by wireless providers should not be tolerated."
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
The internet was always somewhere just beyond the reach of the law because laws always focused on taking down the illegal program or site through technical means. The most recent set of laws focuses less on technology, and more on financial backing, which has proven much more effective at censoring any program or website. You can get around DNS blocking, but you can't get around a site not having any way whatsoever to collect revenue. Ensuring no revenue will cripple websites in a way that none of your technological solutions can prevent.
Don't forget Compuserve also served up content in an icons in a grid that looks even more closely like the iphone than anything else. Random blog with a picture: http://www.fanboy.com/2009/07/compuserve.html
I would assume most cities are not nearly as prolific at handing out tickets than Boston. Generating parking revenue is one area where they have their act together. Cambridge even puts yoga images to calm you down after handing you a $25 ticket.
Maybe no one cares who people are facebook friends with???
Its even easier than that. A patent is granted to the inventor. You can't take another persons invention to the patent office.
Apparently even the posters don't even bother reading the articles anymore... First line under the title: Apr 13, 2009 3:50 am
Google did not give the patents to HTC for keeps, google is letting HTC use them as part of their fight. Other android device makers can use the patents as well if they get into a dispute with microsoft, rim, apple, or anyone else who uses wireless communication.