Technically it was Southwestern Bell that bought AT&T.

And the Bynars back in the first season of TNG.

IANAL and I didn't read the article/case. But my presumption would be that it is still illegal for the states to violate the copyright. You just cannot sue them for it. So while it may be illegal, there is no consequence to the state.

More accurately the government takes away our rights to copy the photo you took of your guns. But the Supreme Court has found that the federal government no longer can take away the rights of the individual state governments to copy the photo your took of your guns.

I didn't read the article... but I think the gist of it is: It's not ok for an app provider to know everything that happens to a device and have total control over it while only providing one service, and not disclosing well that they have so much power over the device.

You download a screentime monitor app from some fly by the night operation that now has control to remote erase, see all the apps on your idevice, etc etc.

Why is it ok for a business and not a parent? Because the business knows what power they are installing onto the device and presumably will vet the app a little more than some parent downloading it on a whim. It's not that the parent shouldn't have the power. It's that the middleman should not have the power.

I don't get it. You post that US inner cities are not safe and everyone keeps trying to argue that you're wrong, US inner cities are not safe!?! Come on, we can do better at reading comprehension. I know it.

And savings is counted against you, so you can't even try to dig yourself out by saving.

Not so much the cities wither. It's the in between places. Suburbia.

But if you shed the casual Prime customers, the ones that are making less purchases, you are decreasing your prime revenue more than you are decreasing the cost of providing prime services. Also, you risk loosing the sales of those customers altogether if they no longer feel "locked in" to Amazon through their prime membership.http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4739279&cid=46128421#

Find a MakerSpace/HackerSpace to hang out in and make, learn, or help others. And if there isn't a suitable one near you, start one! You could learn a new hobby every day, have other techies to hang out with, get ideas for projects, and be able to hang out with peers.

Not to mention the fact that the people on the bus are still breathing, albeit not as much as while riding a bicycle. I bet that is ignored as well.

They already do. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slotting_fee

He is looking for a copy of an ultrasound that was done in 2004. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that records that are only 8 years old remain accessible.

Yea, I mostly just didn't like the headline because it's wrong. But that's what I get for reading the f* bill! (BTW, go read it, it's shorter than the Slashdot blurb about it: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S06779&term=2011&Summary=Y&Text=Y)

And apparently one of the sponsors of the bill is pissed because someone was attacking him anonymously. ( http://betabeat.com/2012/05/new-york-lawmakers-surprised-at-blowback-over-proposed-anonymous-comment-ban/ ) That is exactly my point though. Killing things like YouTube or 4Chan is bad, and they won't die anyway, they will just never be anywhere near NY jurisdiction. So there this doesn't end up doing anything at all to help "save the children" in the end anyway.

Thanks! I am putting that in my letter to my Assemblyman and Senator.

Although in reality the bill is not as bad as the headline proposes. It would not ban anonymous speech, only give anyone the power to ask for anonymous speech to be removed. Still a crappy law.

Anyway, all us New York Staters, let's write to our representatives! Here is my letter:

I have recently read Senate bill S06779 sponsored by Senator Thomas F. O'Mara and the Assembly counterpart A8688 sponsored by Assemblyman Dean Murray. The bill would require websites to remove anonymous postings upon any request. I am concerned about the impact that this bill will have and do not support it.

First and foremost, this bill would have a stifling effect on the free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and extended over state law by the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Documents critical to the formation of our country such as Common Sense by Thomas Paine and The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, et al. were published under the safeguards of anonymity. I certainly understand the importance of protecting innocent people, especially children, from the torments of online bullying. I feel that this bill is too broad and goes too far though, allowing anyone to order the removal of anonymous critical comments including those that are justified, true, political, or from corporate whistleblowers.

Aside from the free speech issues, and almost as important, I fear the effects that this bill would have on the Information Technology industry in New York State. The Internet is a global presence. Websites that wish to allow anonymous speech will be encouraged to move to or start up in jurisdictions outside of New York State, hurting our economy. Furthermore, the bullies that wish to spread the hate speech that this bill intends to protect will also move to the many websites located outside of New York State, severely limiting the potential benefits that this bill may have.

Though well intended, the negative effects of Senate bill S06779 and the Assembly counterpart A8688 far outweigh any positive effects and I sincerely hope that you will not support this bill.