William: Camera phones are a solution looking for a problem. Camera phones are like sofa beds. They aren't very good beds or sofas. They just take up less space. I'd rather have a seperate camera, PDA, and phone; each optimized for their primary task. The other problem is security. Many companies are banning camera phones yet it's becoming impossible to buy a high-end phone without a camera! The carriers are going back to the OEMs and asking them to remove the cameras from some business oriented phones! My wife has a Treo 600 PDA/camera/phone. The phone has lousy reception, the camera takes lo-res pictures, and the PDA is slow with a tiny display. My T608 gets great reception. My iPAQ 1945 is fast with a beautiful display. My Canon SD110 is 3.2 Megapixel. I can take photos on my Cannon, drop the card in my iPAQ, and e-mail them through my bluetooth T608. All the devices are pocket sized and far better than any converged device I've seen.
Jim:... sure your phone, pda and camera are all pocket sized. But, that's three devices, three pockets. A smartphone with camera does all this (and more) whilst filling just one pocket.
The three step process to shuffle your pictures from device to device might be technically possible, but that's a pretty tedious process for a bunch of quick snaps.William: A smartphone cannot do more than I can do with my separate camera, PDA, and phone. I believe it does significantly less. In particular it's not a very capable camera, PDA, or phone! Maybe it's "good enough" at those functions to satisfy most people. Maybe I'm just a "power user" that expects more. A bagel only takes up one pocket but I wouldn't use it to take pictures either.
It's not all that difficult to shuffle pictures from device to device. If my camera had Bluetooth then I would barely even realize the shuffling was taking place. The most tedious step right now is moving the memory card from the camera to the PDA. After that everything is pretty similar to sending photos from my Treo. In less than 20 seconds, I pick a recipient, add a note, attach the photo and hit "Send". With Bluetooth I don't even have to take my phone out of my pocket. Some custom PocketPC software could make it even quicker.
I believe connectivity (ala. Bluetooth) is far more valuable than convergence.
Extortion is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person obtains money, behaviour, or other goods and/or services from another by wrongfully threatening or inflicting harm to his person, reputation, or property.
EXTORTION - The use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent. USC 18
The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).
FRAUD, TO DEFRAUD - The term 'fraud' is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. [Fraud may also include an omission or intentional failure to state material facts, knowledge of which would be necessary to make other statements not misleading.]
Isn't savetoby.com illegal extortion based on this definition from the Hobbs Act, section 1951, "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear..."?
The code also says, "Whoever ... threatens physical violence to ANY person or property ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
Notice that this is not the same definition given at savetoby.com which is not a legal definition at all and does not cite a source. The author's key
phrase "harm to HIS person" does not appear in the legal definition. Simply inducing "fear" is enough to qualify as extortion and no threat is allowed
against ANY person or property. This is why I believe savetoby may indeed qualify as extortion.
I say "may" because I don't really know, but this is not the way the information is presented at savetoby. The author puts forth a definition in the "legal" section of the website which we now all know is NOT a legal definition. The author then stands on this definition as cut-and-dry proof that the scheme violates no law. Furthermore, he establishes all this to convince visitors that sending money is the only recourse for saving Toby and to dissuade the public from attempting criminal prosecution.
Either the savetoby owner invented his own definition or he intentionally chose a definition that casts his scheme in a favorable light. Now look up "fraud." One cannot misrepresent or omit facts in a blatant attempt to extract money from the public. The author clearly selected a common definition and presented it as "the law", citing no sources, to dupe visitors into sending money.
One possible safety for the owner (and for Bob) is to claim that they honestly believed they were accurately representing extortion law when they (loudly) persuaded the public that the savetoby scheme was unequivocally legal. Now that the actual legal definition has been brought to their attention (Bob's at least), that safety is gone. We can continue to argue whether savetoby qualifies as extortion but one thing is unavoidable, the website owner MUST change his misleading definition or he is UNDENIABLY committing FRAUD. I would assume, that Bob would not be party to such fraud which does indeed violate the godaddy terms of service.
Bob, I like your service and your radio show. I respect your opinion and your integrity. I believe this is an honest mistake and I think you will correct it. Savetoby may or may not be extortion, but the website is unquestionably fraudulent.
I thought this ad was cute when I first saw it. However, the second time it popped up on my web browser I realized something wasn't quite right.
if (myJob == boring) {
// Go to Dice for great Java jobs
sendRedirect("http://www.dice.com");
} else {
suck_it_up();
}
Alternatively, I'd accept this:
if (myJob == boring) {
// Go to Dice for great Java jobs
sendRedirect("http://www.dice.com");
} else {
// You job isn't boring
celebrate();
}
It still don't make much sense for the job is not boring case but it's better.
if (myJob == boring && CanQuit) {
// Go to Dice for great Java jobs
sendRedirect("http://www.dice.com");
} else {
// Can't quit or job not boring
suck_it_up();
}
- alias dir='ls -lav --color=auto'
- EDITOR=nano; export EDITOR
- VISUAL=nano; export VISUAL
re-quire-ment: something wanted or needed; something
essential to the existence or occurrence of something
else.
spec-i-fi-ca-tion: detailed precise presentation of
something or of a plan or proposal for something; a
written description of an invention for which a patent
is sought