Let's not rewrite history here. They completely ignored the bug when the teen that found it tried to report it politely and privately even after he and his mother jumped through the hoops "necessary" for them to even report the bug at all. It didn't see any action until it was embarrassingly reported in public with a clear easy to understand and follow video that went viral.
They show no intention of correcting the underlying design bug, they've just papered it over.
Oscillating back and forth isn't correction, it's just instability.
I haven't seen any questionable pharmaceuticals come off of the market without a body count. I have seen a few harmless ones pulled without much evidence of harm, but they were GRAS and not patented.
It's also a matter of how much punishment can be handed out since a person with a first possession charge who only has a small amount of some substance will see less punishment than a person with a large amount of that substance and likely previous criminal history.
You seem to have confused handing out more punishment with the objective of reducing drug sales. If you just wanna punish someone, that strategy makes sense.
Those first time offenders are far more likely to be scared strait by a bit of police action than the dealer who's done the song and dance before.
At least part of it is likely that if you start punishing a large bulk of the not poor not minority buyers, the law starts to look uncomfortably un-democratic.
I think that was the meaning. Even if the OP didn't mean that, it is likely true.
The work producing bitcoin is based on a rather narrow category of problem that is difficult to compute but trivial to verify. That trait is necessary to prevent cheating. You either did the work or not and it's trivial to determine.
The problem is that that necessary characteristic isn't shared by anything useful.
Yes, it is. Consider though, the corporations that would be regulated only exist because that same government granted their charter. If government butts out entirely, they cease to exist and their limited liability becomes full personal liability. Sound good?
Apparently it's not reasonable to expect adults to know the difference between a terrorist threat and teasing Siri, why hold 13 year olds to a higher standard?
Wrong. He told Siri he was going to shoot up a school, probably to see how Siri would react. Siri's reaction was. let's say "unfortunate", so he posted it.
I remember my 4th grade teacher explaining how America was better than Russia because we have freedom of speech but in Russia you had to watch what you say or you could be hauled away by the police.....
The problem is "authorities" also told us to give up butter in favor of trans-fat laden margarine and keeps alternately telling us eggs are good and eggs are of the devil. Then the people who brought out that smoking is harmful and then somewhat exaggerated the claims for 2nd hand smoke have started going off about 3rd and even 4th hand smoke (I'm not kidding).
All of that really has left a vacuum that is now being filled by cranks and quacks.
This is what tells me you're in the weeds (possibly due to not wanting to think about it):
if you start off valuing the education you get for free 1-12
You realize grade 1 is six years old, right? Are you ACTUALLY claiming that a six year old should have the ability to know the education they're being provided is sub-standard, have the foresight and worldly knowledge that this is a problem for the future, and the ability to demand better, be heard, and have his demands acted upon?
Of course, before that whopper, you outlined the unequal nature of opportunity and then claimed this to be "Land of equal opportunities". You might have been using that phrase ironically, but it didn't read that way.
As funny as it would be to watch you yelling at a baby that he needs to man up and change his own damned diaper, please don't have kids until you at least take a few child development classes.
Personally, I don't own an iDevice, so no facetime. But I do have enough imagination to realize that there are people besides me in the world and their circumstances may be different.
The transfer would still be the server telling a client device to make the mike and camera hot. In that case, the client should more or less park the call until the user affirmatively presses a button in the app ON the receiving client device before it makes mike and camera hot. End of story. There should be no way for the server to make the mic hot for any reason.
Further, the bug demonstrated was a bit different. I call you, then I add someone else to the call and your mike goes hot even if you don't answer. That is not me transferring the call.
TL;DR: if they "fixed" it on the server, they didn't fix it at all, they just papered over it.
Congratulations, you are a small minority who couldn't be affected significantly by the bug. Now is the time for you to use your imagination and recognize that you are a small minority in that regard.
A responsible course of action would be to fix the bug by making the client wait for the called party to answer before making the microphone and camera hot no matter what the server says.
Apple says they fixed this on the server. That is, the client still makes the mic hot before you answer, it's just that the server doesn't relay it. No app should transmit your microphone or camera without some affirmative action from you commanding or permitting it. Anything else is irresponsible.
The report on the "fix" reveals a fundamental design flaw. They say they fixed the issue ON THE SERVER.
That means the CLIENT on the phone is expected by design to start sending audio and video as soon as a call comes in (before you answer).
If it was anything like properly designed, the client would never under any circumstances transmit from the mic or the camera unless and until the called party chooses to answer.
Ecigs are actually less addictive than cigarettes. Cigarettes include a MAO inhibitor that potentiates the addictive qualities of nicotine. And again, teens have been smoking in spite of school rules, parental prohibition and laws against selling to minors for decades. It's better they get into the less addictive and less harmful e-cigs.
As for weed, you do know it's not addictive, don't you?
That's the problem. Phishing gets the password, then SS7 shenanigans get the 2nd factor. It's happened often enough that it's time to find something better.
Or, hearing that recording and knowing it will be inadmissible, they pretend to just stumble over the same information in some other manner and claim they were acting on a hunch or just covering all the bases.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's not rewrite history here. They completely ignored the bug when the teen that found it tried to report it politely and privately even after he and his mother jumped through the hoops "necessary" for them to even report the bug at all. It didn't see any action until it was embarrassingly reported in public with a clear easy to understand and follow video that went viral.
They show no intention of correcting the underlying design bug, they've just papered it over.
Prove it didn't, forget the whole thing, or admit the Constitution has been shredded.
It must have malfunctioned!
It's not pining, it's passed on!
More seriously, I don't think it's going away any time soon, but it is becoming the new COBOL.
Oscillating back and forth isn't correction, it's just instability.
I haven't seen any questionable pharmaceuticals come off of the market without a body count. I have seen a few harmless ones pulled without much evidence of harm, but they were GRAS and not patented.
It's also a matter of how much punishment can be handed out since a person with a first possession charge who only has a small amount of some substance will see less punishment than a person with a large amount of that substance and likely previous criminal history.
You seem to have confused handing out more punishment with the objective of reducing drug sales. If you just wanna punish someone, that strategy makes sense.
Those first time offenders are far more likely to be scared strait by a bit of police action than the dealer who's done the song and dance before.
At least part of it is likely that if you start punishing a large bulk of the not poor not minority buyers, the law starts to look uncomfortably un-democratic.
I think that was the meaning. Even if the OP didn't mean that, it is likely true.
The work producing bitcoin is based on a rather narrow category of problem that is difficult to compute but trivial to verify. That trait is necessary to prevent cheating. You either did the work or not and it's trivial to determine.
The problem is that that necessary characteristic isn't shared by anything useful.
Yes, it is. Consider though, the corporations that would be regulated only exist because that same government granted their charter. If government butts out entirely, they cease to exist and their limited liability becomes full personal liability. Sound good?
That's not what TFA says.
Had they not actually charged him with a serious crime and hauled him off to juvie, you might have a point.
Instead, all he has learned is that anyone who says the police are his friends or that we have freedom of speech is full of crap.
Apparently it's not reasonable to expect adults to know the difference between a terrorist threat and teasing Siri, why hold 13 year olds to a higher standard?
Wrong. He told Siri he was going to shoot up a school, probably to see how Siri would react. Siri's reaction was. let's say "unfortunate", so he posted it.
I remember my 4th grade teacher explaining how America was better than Russia because we have freedom of speech but in Russia you had to watch what you say or you could be hauled away by the police.....
The problem is "authorities" also told us to give up butter in favor of trans-fat laden margarine and keeps alternately telling us eggs are good and eggs are of the devil. Then the people who brought out that smoking is harmful and then somewhat exaggerated the claims for 2nd hand smoke have started going off about 3rd and even 4th hand smoke (I'm not kidding).
All of that really has left a vacuum that is now being filled by cranks and quacks.
This is what tells me you're in the weeds (possibly due to not wanting to think about it):
if you start off valuing the education you get for free 1-12
You realize grade 1 is six years old, right? Are you ACTUALLY claiming that a six year old should have the ability to know the education they're being provided is sub-standard, have the foresight and worldly knowledge that this is a problem for the future, and the ability to demand better, be heard, and have his demands acted upon?
Of course, before that whopper, you outlined the unequal nature of opportunity and then claimed this to be "Land of equal opportunities". You might have been using that phrase ironically, but it didn't read that way.
As funny as it would be to watch you yelling at a baby that he needs to man up and change his own damned diaper, please don't have kids until you at least take a few child development classes.
Or if you didn't have the opportunities...
Personally, I don't own an iDevice, so no facetime. But I do have enough imagination to realize that there are people besides me in the world and their circumstances may be different.
The transfer would still be the server telling a client device to make the mike and camera hot. In that case, the client should more or less park the call until the user affirmatively presses a button in the app ON the receiving client device before it makes mike and camera hot. End of story. There should be no way for the server to make the mic hot for any reason.
Further, the bug demonstrated was a bit different. I call you, then I add someone else to the call and your mike goes hot even if you don't answer. That is not me transferring the call.
TL;DR: if they "fixed" it on the server, they didn't fix it at all, they just papered over it.
Mod parent up!
Congratulations, you are a small minority who couldn't be affected significantly by the bug. Now is the time for you to use your imagination and recognize that you are a small minority in that regard.
A responsible course of action would be to fix the bug by making the client wait for the called party to answer before making the microphone and camera hot no matter what the server says.
Apple says they fixed this on the server. That is, the client still makes the mic hot before you answer, it's just that the server doesn't relay it. No app should transmit your microphone or camera without some affirmative action from you commanding or permitting it. Anything else is irresponsible.
The report on the "fix" reveals a fundamental design flaw. They say they fixed the issue ON THE SERVER.
That means the CLIENT on the phone is expected by design to start sending audio and video as soon as a call comes in (before you answer).
If it was anything like properly designed, the client would never under any circumstances transmit from the mic or the camera unless and until the called party chooses to answer.
As I said, the few lines of Javascript take less time and effort than the huge framework. IF you know what you're doing.
Ecigs are actually less addictive than cigarettes. Cigarettes include a MAO inhibitor that potentiates the addictive qualities of nicotine. And again, teens have been smoking in spite of school rules, parental prohibition and laws against selling to minors for decades. It's better they get into the less addictive and less harmful e-cigs.
As for weed, you do know it's not addictive, don't you?
That's the problem. Phishing gets the password, then SS7 shenanigans get the 2nd factor. It's happened often enough that it's time to find something better.
Or, hearing that recording and knowing it will be inadmissible, they pretend to just stumble over the same information in some other manner and claim they were acting on a hunch or just covering all the bases.