I can only guess: It is likely judges do not know what they are adjudicating. Another bad case is a patent on driving I2C-enabled RGB LEDs via I2C. It's a patent on using a product as intended. It's like patenting the act of using a brake with a hydraulic line to stop a car.
The guy goes around trolling makers with it and forcing people to pay huge royalties.
Your security firm would likely be doing better if you had a degree. Even if you-with-degree had not gone the same route you would be doing something different but for more money. The average effect of a degree is an increased income even accounting for debt.
There is no guarantee in life. But what you are doing is trying to dissuade me from pursuing fairness. Imagine saying what you are saying to civil rights protesters in the 60s. Do you really think it would fly?
"Accept the status quo and don't try to change it! Just succeed despite it."
That is insane. If the odds are against you change them, through violence if necessary.
What do you mean spend more than they take in? The USPS is in the black, save for some strange law that they must prefund pensions 50 years in advance (any company would be running a loss if they had to do this).
The USPS can't increase their domestic prices but there is good indication that they are charging more to offset this. There are complaints in this thread even about the cost of shipping abroad, as international shipping is not regulated like domestic postage rates if I remember right. So the USPS uses outbound international shipments as a cost center to make up for the subsidy to China.
The article states there is a ~$500M subsidy to China through UPU rates.
That's ridiculous. Your life would be better without those hardships. You don't know that forgoing those hardships would leave you with other, more difficult hardships; and in any case, if you went without the hardships that limited your access to school you'd be making more money and could deal with your new problems with money.
You've been brainwashed and deluded into accepting mediocrity.
If I don't have what I want and can't get it then how could I possibly have an abundance mindset? That abundance mindset stuff is like telling depressed people to stop being depressed.
They do subsidize through rates. The UPU is set up so that the last mile of a receiving country is charged to the sender as if it were in the sender's country. This is made up from other revenue the carrier in the receiving country makes.
This is kind of dangerous. The article is basically saying you should not demand more of society. I had problems in school and everyone brushed me off -- am I not right to be angry? Am I not right to demand I get the same consideration that others got? What do I need to do to do it, get back into school, and get the same free money?
The original statement by a justice implying restriction on freedom of expression was later recanted (note it was not directly a precedent setting ruling either). There are people in the US that see any restriction, even for hate speech or incitement of violence, as against the first amendment.
You might think they are extreme in their views but rulings restricting speech are very, very rare.
You restated your position instead of addressing my question and then added irrelevant speculation in a different direction.
The issue with supply chain tracking is the sharing of information. If every part of the supply chain is hacked then you have all of the info. You also need to look at it backwards: instead of "who has X" ask "where did X go" which is easier to answer. It starts at the source, the factory, which can know which serial was in which lot. Then you know where that got shipped, etc.
Maybe occasionally units get "lost" but you do have error bounds on their location.
Ok, that sounds good. The example was more just to be illustrative. But there is the (slight) possibility of harmonics on the power lines, etc. There are EDA suites that can do such signal analysis on your board but they are quite expensive. If you picked just the wrong values there could be a filter system which amplifies noise from a power supply.
The trick is to get your board manufacturer to eat the return cost. If you can buy testing, do so; usually it comes with some assurance that the boards work, and they either make new stock or remanufacture what you send back. If you can point to a comprehensive testing instructions that the customer would have performed it should not matter if you receive the board and it works for you, for some reason it did not work for the customer.
I have to agree with sangnoir. I don't want to provide free engineering services. I want a working product. If you are explicit about component compatibility and provide a troubleshooting checklist (all ways it must be plugged in and turned on) then you should assume there is an issue. You should also treat the boards as interchangeable; if a board comes back, you test it and it's good, ship it out again.
A family friend will help me troubleshoot my electronics. So, I have seen the other side of this: I get something which is completely nonfunctional and send it back to the manufacturer who claims it is functional, and tries to bill me for the shipping both ways. That's why if I can not get a working replacement in 2wk or so I just send it back for refund.
For a real example: Are you using very well made power supplies? Maybe your board's power filtering could be better, and customers notice because they buy the cheapest supply that meets their power requirements.
It may be legal to apply for asylum but it is still a misdemeanor to enter the US without proper authorization. How these two things may interact is up for debate, but there is plenty of legal precedent that these "gotchas" are intentional.
Arguably if the migrants are not stopping to apply at a port of entry then they broke the law.
> he's not out to screw any customers or provide an inferior product.
Can he actually manage returns? His suppliers should be eating the cost of faulty boards, and the article makes me think they aren't. Continued problems customer side should result in a replacement.
In the US you have full rights to a return to the person who took your money for 30-90 days (depends on state). Requests that you use the warranty or contact the manufacturer are unenforceable. Considering this, it is unwise to wait for longer than that period before requesting your money back. The federal statute of limitations for being sold a defective product is 4 years, but that is a lot harder to enforce.
Remember the AMD Ryzen returns? Why wait 2-3 months for a replacement? Demand your money back from Newegg and buy another, they have to process the refund. Also -- most FFLs either state gun returns are outright illegal (a lie) or only accepted for 3 days (against state law) with a steep restocking fee (also against state law). This is the worst case I know of.
People stood up to the warrant-less searches but were disposed of one way or another. A good example is the Qwest CEO: he wasn't killed, but he was jailed after acting in his own self interest after his company was ruined.
There are occurrences that are less clear cut but still suspicious and that involve long prison terms or death.
>Put is this way: Why should I get my safety as a US person put at risk so someone can publicize their story that someone leaked something again? In that video at 1:00. He's trying to make it so classification basically no longer has meaning, if they defect to a journalist.
You're wanting to trade freedom for security. I disagree that that is a good idea. You also do not know that he is trying to do that; certainly he has not stated as such.
He exposed high crimes. That is why people think he should not suffer punishment.
>For the sake of encouraging understanding: I think constitution is used as a way to imply subjectivity of what feels right.
That is true in the sense that all laws are only what "feels" right. There is a long history of the US federal government twisting laws to give the federal government more power.
It really feels like you're trolling, the last statement does not seem to follow any way I try to read it.
I can acknowledge that yes, there are people out there who want to kill you and take your stuff. Defunding the defense apparatus of the US is not a valid solution. But neither is the status quo.
"Not good enough" is compared to how many slots are available, many of the people forced out could be good enough.
The stories I have been told of difficult classes in the EU are mind-bending. They seem to be incentivizing ~80% of the class to drop out. There is no way the majority of people are not suited for, say, IT. They may not want to do it, but that doesn't mean they are not capable of doing it.
Instead of attacking the content of the leaks or his claimed motives you are mainly attacking his character.
It should be obvious that he planned to take the data. Taking it without a plan would be a good way for him to fail to accomplish anything. The main detraction I can see is that he leaked without regard to content, even considering he may not have had time to look over what he had taken (e.g. there is some top level stuff about drones that probably could have been redacted with a quick scan of the documents).
He likely avoided commenting on improvements to remain apolitical; if he had not, it would be more ammunition for character assassination. Other countries may be doing roughly the same but most people's issue is not with the fact spying was occurring but that it was largely turned inward.[1] You do not know he would throw away the whole system. As previously mentioned, he likely had no time to figure out what documents were what and the impact of their release would be.
In any case, he was acting as if he expected his own government to completely ignore the protections it had built in to defend its citizens. That some of the domestic programs he exposed were since cancelled due to public outrage is telling.
---
[1]: Besides the unconstitutionality of inwards-facing spying it is also a red herring. We repeatedly see little in the way of domestic terrorism but because inward spying is so much easier to do it seems to make up a disproportionate amount of the information generated; information that is likely not representative of real threats.
The other side of this is that in the European system many otherwise qualified individuals will never see higher education because there is so much competition for the limited spaces available. I would hazard to guess that most people arguing that US education should be more European would not be able to achieve degrees in such a system anyway due to early test scores precluding them from attending.
The guy goes around trolling makers with it and forcing people to pay huge royalties.