The warrant as issued was legal until it was withdrawn. Nothing was removed that wasn't in the warrant, and nothing else was damaged per the editor's own blog.
Ummmmm.... okay.
Let me rephrase that:
I removed property from a neighbors home without their permission or knowledge. Up until the point I was caught, I was acting legally.
The warrant was overturned specifically because it was illegal. The judge even admonished the DA. "Legal until withdrawn" does not even make sense, much less, excuse their actions.
It is interesting to note, that everybody posting sentiments against my arguments keep saying I am either anti-Apple, pro-Gizmodo, etc. while completely ignoring that the most important part about the article was neither Apple or Gizmodo, but how government keeps acting against the interests of people and freedom in general.
Perhaps you just need to actually use one before opening your mouth?
Perhaps all I need to do is watch others directly around me, and then open my mouth. I was just stating my experience... which is that Android has its fair share of power usage problems.
I am one of two BBs in the whole company. Everybody else uses either Android or iPhone, with the majority using Android at the moment. Some execs go through 2-3 Android phones a year. I am around them all the time, go to lunch with them, etc.
The only thing I see is power problems. All of the Androids are dead or dying, some of them by lunch time. Those are facts. You mentioned light usage? Well, everybody is constantly on Facebook or whatever on their phone. There is no light usage from what I can see, from either Android or iPhone around me.
It was overturned because the law calls for a subpoena instead of a warrant in such cases. That does not change the fact that Gizmodo knowingly trafficked in stolen goods, and they perverted the intent of the law. The police erred in this case as the law is clear. That doesn't excuse what Gizmodo did.
It's sad that the anti-Apple crowd are using this to make Gizmodo into some sort of martyr in this when it was a shameful perversion of the law and it's intended purpose. This reduces the chances that any real journalist who has a real need of this protection will face a more difficult time. Gizmodo knowingly paid just below the minimum amount that would have made this a larger crime. (a felony for anything over $5000 dollars). They did so knowing exactly how to twist the law just for monetary gain via more hits to their webiste while relying on journalists protections to shield them while participating in a crime.
This is not something that I would consider worthy of protection and it's sad that a law with truly worthy goals was used in this way.
What is sad is that anybody that takes a contrary position that even seemingly supports Gizmodo, even as a side affect of supporting proper law, is seen automatically as an anti-Apple fanboi.
It is, "you are either with us or against us" mentality. That is sad.
Logical and rational discourse with you is obviously impossible because nothing I say is valid as long at does not directly support Apple.
Fine.
Gee man.... that like totally sucks for Apple man.... fucking corrupt cops walking around trashing our rights let Gizmodo get away with it.... You Happy?
You mean the same Gizmodo that was trafficking in stolen goods? Just because he's a journalist doesn't mean he is except from the law. The search warrant was valid no matter how much the anti-Apple fanboi's may like to whine about it. The evidence was in relation to them making a deal to buy stolen goods. Not some 'freedom of speech'. Save your support for someone that earns it.
My support is not for any particular company in this case. It is for proper behavior by law enforcement.
If any of what you said was true, then why was the search warrant overturned? The search warrant was invalid and I am not an anti-Apple fanboi, or a fanboi of anything.
which is quite enough to warrant police intervention.
There is a difference between intervention and corruption.
An investigation is fine. Violating the rights of the Gizmodo editor in such a cavalier way with no remorse or accountability only furthers the public's disillusionment with law enforcement as being their to truly serve and protect The People. Being snarky about it afterwards only digs the hole deeper.
It also reminds me of the Skylarov case. Law enforcement was at the beck and call of Adobe, and acted as nothing more than a private security force. Ultimately, it was determined that Skylarov did nothing wrong, yet I don't see an apology from the FBI or Adobe on that either. Keep in mind, the man was held against his will in a foreign country for nearly 6 months for doing nothing wrong.
How about the mentally challenged work program at the FBI? That's about the only thing that can explain how an FBI agent all hopped up could seize every system in a datacenter causing extreme harm to such a large number of corporations that were innocent bystanders. Effectively, it was no different than arresting a whole neighborhood of citizens due to the behavior of one person in one house.
The problem is not the investigations. It is the actions of the investigators.
A law is not inherently just, ethical, logical, rational, etc. When a law is clearly wrong, or being applied wrongly, it is the civic duty of any citizen to not support it, and when opportunity provides for it, participate in jury nullification.
My responsibility runs a little bit higher. Silly me, I don't have a supervisor. What I am concerned about is hundreds of jobs that depend on me doing my job.
Sorry, that law enforcement is such a cluster fuck of stupidity, corruption, and ineptitude. That's not my fault.
My fears about them coming in and taking everything down are well, well, well justified. So I will still perform my own investigation before risking having the company destroyed, because there is one thing I know for certain....... the cops don't give two shits about the hundreds of employees while I do. They won't care when they take all the equipment and put those hundreds of employees out of a job.
The greatest liability to the company is the equipment seizure. Depending on just how much they take and where, and the FBI has jurisdiction in every state to do it, I am not sure the company could recover from it.
So when I make my decision, I am forced to factor in the fate of every employee. So despite what you said, I am going to be certain before I do anything.
So keep your judgement to yourself and don't say I am not acting professionally, because I am. What I am not doing is acting selfishly.
Maybe if law enforcement was more reasonable and not associated with the two tons of horror stories and Patriot Act bullshit people like me would not have reason to fear them coming and doing what they have done many times in the past to other companies.
Think about that for a minute.
P.S - If I was certain that the police would come in and perform their forensics in the system while maintaining uptime, and even collecting more evidence over time in a cooperative fashion, I would jump at in a second. Unfortunately, we live in a world ruled by fucking morons who don't know the first thing about technology and go rampaging through infrastructure like a raging bull unless you have really really influential connections and strong legal defenses to make them think twice.
P.S - My job, as the highest IT professional in the company, is keeping the technology we have working so other employees can do theirs. That's the job. Destroying the infrastructure in a hasty irresponsible manner is not acting professionally.
What part about the "associated with more mental problems" did you miss?
Not all fantasies are equal. The ones involving harm and abuse of children usually go hand in hand with deeper pathology.
Strong negative consequences can be mitigated by a deep desire motivated by mental problems. The death penalty is pretty damned strong as a deterrent right? Then how come serial killers can seemingly get over it? When interviewed they always seem to indicate that they are driven and powerless to stop themselves.
While what you say is logical, I don't think it is appropriate to apply it to all fantasies, specifically, ones involving killing people and sexually abusing children.
While you have a point, I would still determine if company resources were simply being used as a dump, or if the employee was actively involved.
I don't trust cops, and I trust the FBI even less. Many companies I have worked for can't take the hit, and you just have no idea if the cops are going to seize all your equipment, specific equipment, etc.
So, yes, I could be absolutely safe and secure in the knowledge that responsibility was entirely in the hands of the authorities, but at a very severe risk of company operations being so severely impacted that it threatens the livelihood of hundreds of other employees.
Sorry, I have heard of too many nightmare stories. Like the one about the complete dipshit working at the FBI that seized all equipment in the datacenter, not just from the suspect, but hundreds of other companies at the same time. Not all of them survived.
In one case, the FTC had to be negotiated with on the spot to not take every single server, but only the specific ones that were being used by the customer to host their operations and data. In fact, in that case the FTC was convinced and persuaded so well, the equipment was not confiscated at all and the company was hired to help host and evaluate the data for them since said company also developed some of the code.
I guess there has to be a balance, and I would rather determine on my own if an employee is involved or not, before having to replace an entire infrastructure and laying off employees till everything was back up and working.
I never said it should be criminalized, only that the person should be receiving psychological evaluation immediately. I also *never* indicated that thoughts or fantasies should be criminalized at all.
There is a big difference, huge difference, about fantasizing about pulling off some heist, or punching your boss, and killing/raping/torturing people.
Not all fantasies are equal. If you go into an ER and answer a question about suicidal thoughts or fantasies the wrong way.... boy let me tell you... it gets people hopping around really quickly.
That same logic applies here. Fantasies/thoughts about hurting people or sexually abusing children fall into the category of "this shit needs to be dealt with now". Why? They don't want it happening later on, because it turns out, it usually does.
So although I agree with you in principle, I don't agree that we can group these specific fantasies with your seemingly overall category of "harmless". Some of them we need to pay attention too and attempt to help people. I don't want to see the person automatically go to prison, but I do want to see them receive some sort of help and therapy. At a minimum, have well qualified people determine just how likely it is that they will act on those impulses.
I never disputed that it was illegal under the current laws. Just the throwing it all into one category is bullshit.
It's perfectly normal to be attracted to 16-18 year old girls sexually when they are fully developed young women. That's biology. Sentencing a 21 year old man to prison time for having a 17 year girl friend and possessing naked pictures of her is just retarded.
My point was in making the distinction of what is a biological motivation to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex (or same) and being sexually attracted towards children.
It's different, and the law says they are the same. If am I going to be part of sentencing a man (or woman) to prison for "child" porn, it had better damn well be children and not some sexually active 16 year old girl actively seeking sexual partners. If it is a 16 year old boy, actively seeking sexual partners is a given 99.9999% of the time.
So if I find some pictures on a guys computer at work where it's possible that it might be some high school cheerleaders I would probably just ignore it. 7 year old girls, or worse boys? I am going to report that because I do consider him a threat to children and needing of psychological evaluation. Prison time is a bit harsh for simple possession, but I am certainly not going to be silent about it.
Whoa, Nellie. Small difference between looking and fantasizing, huge difference between fantasizing and doing.
Depends on what you are talking about. Fantasizing about some things can be indicative of a deeper pathology.
Fantasizing about some celebrity, or being in Star Trek, or on the game grid in Tron is one thing. Killing or harming people is another.
A normal person does not truly fantasize about this, or plan on how to do it. Sexual attraction towards children is abnormal and in most cases is associated with other trauma or psychological problems.
I don't work for the FBI or anything studying serial killers but I don't think we need a psych major here to tell you that certain fantasies tended to be acted upon more than others. Specifically, the darker ones associated with more mental problems.
1) Is a Catholic Bishop considered an employer? I have never heard that religious organizations are treated as companies and have officers, employees, board members, etc. I am confused as to what the Bishop *is* in that regards.
2) Possession can be a reasonable cause to suspect. Let me be clear on that. Having some photos of girls that might be 16-17 showing off their tits (developed tits) at a club or party is not child porn. Child porn is where it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that it is a small prepubescent child in the content.
I would think that somebody that has pornographic pictures of children nude or engaged in sexual acts is a reasonable indicator that they are sexually aroused by such images and situations, and at some point, will attempt to bring their own fantasies to life. Every pedophile has a first time they abused a child, and I believe there was a catalyst. Either past sexual abuse inflicted upon them, or a developed sexual attraction towards children.
Whether or not I think the sole act of possession is enough to warrant prison time is another matter, but I would suspect the person of having sexually abused children in the past, and certainly thinking about abusing children in the future.
If I found child pornography on a computer in my company I would investigate it immediately. Absolute first thing I would determine is if the employee is actually accessing it, and is it accessible from the public Internet. Meaning, was my company hacked and the system being used as a dump to serve child porn.
Either way, once my initial investigation was complete (which would be that day), I would involve the authorities without question.
Until we have tablets you can wad up or fold to be pocket sized, it will not work for me at all.
The web browsing experience and usability is ruined by how small the screen is, and resolution has diminishing returns at some point, and we have reached it already.
As for other apps, unless they are specifically designed for that form factor you are trying to shove data meant for a different UI into a much smaller compact one. It does not always work very effectively. An SSH window that allows me to work on some headless servers can work fairly okay, but anything else like reading PDF documents or RDP is just a waste of time.
Other than geek value of "check this shit out man", it is just not very usable on a day to day basis to get anything done.
I really do need something the size of a tablet to feel comfortable using it, and until then, smart phones just don't appeal to me.
My Storm is a perfect compromise at this point. It has great battery life, acts as a phone pretty well, and the resolution and speed allow me to check emails fairly easy. Reading an attached PDF document is still PITA, but I don't get that many emails with attachments like that anyways. So it works for me.
I use my BB quite often with some other apps actually. Nothing that uses the Internet really heavy because all web browsing sucks on all phones equally. The form factor is just not suited for it.
You sure that's not because of the sorely outdated ARM11 CPU and the small, low resolution screen on your BB? I do tons of web browsing on my G2x and it's quite nice.
Absolutely sure. As as I stated before, it is the form factor alone, not how fast something loads. At some point resolution works against you. Sure, you might be able to render the whole page, but not see it. You need to see something? Zoom in.
It's about the size and what can be rendered, not how fast it works.
Having to zoom in constantly to part of a page and then back out, and then have half the page go away when entering text makes web surfing a bajillion times harder than it needs to be. Just too frustrating for me on a smart phone.
At a minimum, I would need a tablet.
However, short of a Playbook (which is $500 more than I am willing to spend without solid Android app support), every other tablet out there either has a totally fucking ridiculous data plan, or no data plan at all.
No data plan forces me to jailbreak, etc. my phone so that I can tether the tablet. I am not going to fight for it that hard. Rather keep my money till they figure out how to deliver a product that I want.
Until then, I have a laptop and a hotspot. Bulky, to be sure, but effective for what I actually need.
Slashdot Mirror
Who will inflict justice on Amazon?
Duh.
A bunch of shoe less midgets walking through the forest on their epic quest.
The warrant as issued was legal until it was withdrawn. Nothing was removed that wasn't in the warrant, and nothing else was damaged per the editor's own blog.
Ummmmm.... okay.
Let me rephrase that:
I removed property from a neighbors home without their permission or knowledge. Up until the point I was caught, I was acting legally .
The warrant was overturned specifically because it was illegal. The judge even admonished the DA. "Legal until withdrawn" does not even make sense, much less, excuse their actions.
It is interesting to note, that everybody posting sentiments against my arguments keep saying I am either anti-Apple, pro-Gizmodo, etc. while completely ignoring that the most important part about the article was neither Apple or Gizmodo, but how government keeps acting against the interests of people and freedom in general.
Perhaps you just need to actually use one before opening your mouth?
Perhaps all I need to do is watch others directly around me, and then open my mouth. I was just stating my experience... which is that Android has its fair share of power usage problems.
I am one of two BBs in the whole company. Everybody else uses either Android or iPhone, with the majority using Android at the moment. Some execs go through 2-3 Android phones a year. I am around them all the time, go to lunch with them, etc.
The only thing I see is power problems. All of the Androids are dead or dying, some of them by lunch time. Those are facts. You mentioned light usage? Well, everybody is constantly on Facebook or whatever on their phone. There is no light usage from what I can see, from either Android or iPhone around me.
The only recourse is to throw your arms up in the air like a Fraggle, bend over, and take it
Dude.... I don't think we were watching the same TV show as kids.
It was overturned because the law calls for a subpoena instead of a warrant in such cases. That does not change the fact that Gizmodo knowingly trafficked in stolen goods, and they perverted the intent of the law. The police erred in this case as the law is clear. That doesn't excuse what Gizmodo did.
It's sad that the anti-Apple crowd are using this to make Gizmodo into some sort of martyr in this when it was a shameful perversion of the law and it's intended purpose. This reduces the chances that any real journalist who has a real need of this protection will face a more difficult time. Gizmodo knowingly paid just below the minimum amount that would have made this a larger crime. (a felony for anything over $5000 dollars). They did so knowing exactly how to twist the law just for monetary gain via more hits to their webiste while relying on journalists protections to shield them while participating in a crime.
This is not something that I would consider worthy of protection and it's sad that a law with truly worthy goals was used in this way.
What is sad is that anybody that takes a contrary position that even seemingly supports Gizmodo, even as a side affect of supporting proper law, is seen automatically as an anti-Apple fanboi.
It is, "you are either with us or against us" mentality. That is sad.
Logical and rational discourse with you is obviously impossible because nothing I say is valid as long at does not directly support Apple.
Fine.
Gee man.... that like totally sucks for Apple man.... fucking corrupt cops walking around trashing our rights let Gizmodo get away with it.... You Happy?
FYI,
I deliberately mispelled it to indicate just how much I respect and love social networks. It was meant to be derogatory.
In all fairness Enceladus does sound like Enchirito, but a lighter, healthier version.
You mean the same Gizmodo that was trafficking in stolen goods? Just because he's a journalist doesn't mean he is except from the law. The search warrant was valid no matter how much the anti-Apple fanboi's may like to whine about it. The evidence was in relation to them making a deal to buy stolen goods. Not some 'freedom of speech'. Save your support for someone that earns it.
My support is not for any particular company in this case. It is for proper behavior by law enforcement.
If any of what you said was true, then why was the search warrant overturned? The search warrant was invalid and I am not an anti-Apple fanboi, or a fanboi of anything.
which is quite enough to warrant police intervention.
There is a difference between intervention and corruption.
An investigation is fine. Violating the rights of the Gizmodo editor in such a cavalier way with no remorse or accountability only furthers the public's disillusionment with law enforcement as being their to truly serve and protect The People. Being snarky about it afterwards only digs the hole deeper.
It also reminds me of the Skylarov case. Law enforcement was at the beck and call of Adobe, and acted as nothing more than a private security force. Ultimately, it was determined that Skylarov did nothing wrong, yet I don't see an apology from the FBI or Adobe on that either. Keep in mind, the man was held against his will in a foreign country for nearly 6 months for doing nothing wrong.
How about the mentally challenged work program at the FBI? That's about the only thing that can explain how an FBI agent all hopped up could seize every system in a datacenter causing extreme harm to such a large number of corporations that were innocent bystanders. Effectively, it was no different than arresting a whole neighborhood of citizens due to the behavior of one person in one house.
The problem is not the investigations. It is the actions of the investigators.
Two Words:
Jury Nullification
A law is not inherently just, ethical, logical, rational, etc. When a law is clearly wrong, or being applied wrongly, it is the civic duty of any citizen to not support it, and when opportunity provides for it, participate in jury nullification.
That's just it. I never mentioned criminalize.
All I said was that possession of child porn usually indicates a deeper pathology. People like that need evaluation and help.
Jeeezzz.
Okay.
I don't have fantasies about raping you either.
Feel safer?
Yeah. Uh huh.
My responsibility runs a little bit higher. Silly me, I don't have a supervisor. What I am concerned about is hundreds of jobs that depend on me doing my job.
Sorry, that law enforcement is such a cluster fuck of stupidity, corruption, and ineptitude. That's not my fault.
My fears about them coming in and taking everything down are well, well, well justified. So I will still perform my own investigation before risking having the company destroyed, because there is one thing I know for certain....... the cops don't give two shits about the hundreds of employees while I do. They won't care when they take all the equipment and put those hundreds of employees out of a job.
The greatest liability to the company is the equipment seizure. Depending on just how much they take and where, and the FBI has jurisdiction in every state to do it, I am not sure the company could recover from it.
So when I make my decision, I am forced to factor in the fate of every employee. So despite what you said, I am going to be certain before I do anything.
So keep your judgement to yourself and don't say I am not acting professionally, because I am. What I am not doing is acting selfishly.
Maybe if law enforcement was more reasonable and not associated with the two tons of horror stories and Patriot Act bullshit people like me would not have reason to fear them coming and doing what they have done many times in the past to other companies.
Think about that for a minute.
P.S - If I was certain that the police would come in and perform their forensics in the system while maintaining uptime, and even collecting more evidence over time in a cooperative fashion, I would jump at in a second. Unfortunately, we live in a world ruled by fucking morons who don't know the first thing about technology and go rampaging through infrastructure like a raging bull unless you have really really influential connections and strong legal defenses to make them think twice.
P.S - My job, as the highest IT professional in the company, is keeping the technology we have working so other employees can do theirs. That's the job. Destroying the infrastructure in a hasty irresponsible manner is not acting professionally.
What part about the "associated with more mental problems" did you miss?
Not all fantasies are equal. The ones involving harm and abuse of children usually go hand in hand with deeper pathology.
Strong negative consequences can be mitigated by a deep desire motivated by mental problems. The death penalty is pretty damned strong as a deterrent right? Then how come serial killers can seemingly get over it? When interviewed they always seem to indicate that they are driven and powerless to stop themselves.
While what you say is logical, I don't think it is appropriate to apply it to all fantasies, specifically, ones involving killing people and sexually abusing children.
I guess it isn't. It was a personal opinion, and I have to admit it is a double standard.
What?????
That is the #1 fantasy????
I have never had a fantasy about raping a woman. Ever.
Citation Puhleeeze.
While you have a point, I would still determine if company resources were simply being used as a dump, or if the employee was actively involved.
I don't trust cops, and I trust the FBI even less. Many companies I have worked for can't take the hit, and you just have no idea if the cops are going to seize all your equipment, specific equipment, etc.
So, yes, I could be absolutely safe and secure in the knowledge that responsibility was entirely in the hands of the authorities, but at a very severe risk of company operations being so severely impacted that it threatens the livelihood of hundreds of other employees.
Sorry, I have heard of too many nightmare stories. Like the one about the complete dipshit working at the FBI that seized all equipment in the datacenter, not just from the suspect, but hundreds of other companies at the same time. Not all of them survived.
In one case, the FTC had to be negotiated with on the spot to not take every single server, but only the specific ones that were being used by the customer to host their operations and data. In fact, in that case the FTC was convinced and persuaded so well, the equipment was not confiscated at all and the company was hired to help host and evaluate the data for them since said company also developed some of the code.
I guess there has to be a balance, and I would rather determine on my own if an employee is involved or not, before having to replace an entire infrastructure and laying off employees till everything was back up and working.
I never said it should be criminalized, only that the person should be receiving psychological evaluation immediately. I also *never* indicated that thoughts or fantasies should be criminalized at all.
There is a big difference, huge difference, about fantasizing about pulling off some heist, or punching your boss, and killing/raping/torturing people.
Not all fantasies are equal. If you go into an ER and answer a question about suicidal thoughts or fantasies the wrong way.... boy let me tell you... it gets people hopping around really quickly.
That same logic applies here. Fantasies/thoughts about hurting people or sexually abusing children fall into the category of "this shit needs to be dealt with now". Why? They don't want it happening later on, because it turns out, it usually does.
So although I agree with you in principle, I don't agree that we can group these specific fantasies with your seemingly overall category of "harmless". Some of them we need to pay attention too and attempt to help people. I don't want to see the person automatically go to prison, but I do want to see them receive some sort of help and therapy. At a minimum, have well qualified people determine just how likely it is that they will act on those impulses.
I never disputed that it was illegal under the current laws. Just the throwing it all into one category is bullshit.
It's perfectly normal to be attracted to 16-18 year old girls sexually when they are fully developed young women. That's biology. Sentencing a 21 year old man to prison time for having a 17 year girl friend and possessing naked pictures of her is just retarded.
My point was in making the distinction of what is a biological motivation to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex (or same) and being sexually attracted towards children.
It's different, and the law says they are the same. If am I going to be part of sentencing a man (or woman) to prison for "child" porn, it had better damn well be children and not some sexually active 16 year old girl actively seeking sexual partners. If it is a 16 year old boy, actively seeking sexual partners is a given 99.9999% of the time.
So if I find some pictures on a guys computer at work where it's possible that it might be some high school cheerleaders I would probably just ignore it. 7 year old girls, or worse boys? I am going to report that because I do consider him a threat to children and needing of psychological evaluation. Prison time is a bit harsh for simple possession, but I am certainly not going to be silent about it.
Whoa, Nellie. Small difference between looking and fantasizing, huge difference between fantasizing and doing.
Depends on what you are talking about. Fantasizing about some things can be indicative of a deeper pathology.
Fantasizing about some celebrity, or being in Star Trek, or on the game grid in Tron is one thing. Killing or harming people is another.
A normal person does not truly fantasize about this, or plan on how to do it. Sexual attraction towards children is abnormal and in most cases is associated with other trauma or psychological problems.
I don't work for the FBI or anything studying serial killers but I don't think we need a psych major here to tell you that certain fantasies tended to be acted upon more than others. Specifically, the darker ones associated with more mental problems.
1) Is a Catholic Bishop considered an employer? I have never heard that religious organizations are treated as companies and have officers, employees, board members, etc. I am confused as to what the Bishop *is* in that regards.
2) Possession can be a reasonable cause to suspect. Let me be clear on that. Having some photos of girls that might be 16-17 showing off their tits (developed tits) at a club or party is not child porn. Child porn is where it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that it is a small prepubescent child in the content.
I would think that somebody that has pornographic pictures of children nude or engaged in sexual acts is a reasonable indicator that they are sexually aroused by such images and situations, and at some point, will attempt to bring their own fantasies to life. Every pedophile has a first time they abused a child, and I believe there was a catalyst. Either past sexual abuse inflicted upon them, or a developed sexual attraction towards children.
Whether or not I think the sole act of possession is enough to warrant prison time is another matter, but I would suspect the person of having sexually abused children in the past, and certainly thinking about abusing children in the future.
If I found child pornography on a computer in my company I would investigate it immediately. Absolute first thing I would determine is if the employee is actually accessing it, and is it accessible from the public Internet. Meaning, was my company hacked and the system being used as a dump to serve child porn.
Either way, once my initial investigation was complete (which would be that day), I would involve the authorities without question.
Problem is the pocket sized form factor.
Until we have tablets you can wad up or fold to be pocket sized, it will not work for me at all.
The web browsing experience and usability is ruined by how small the screen is, and resolution has diminishing returns at some point, and we have reached it already.
As for other apps, unless they are specifically designed for that form factor you are trying to shove data meant for a different UI into a much smaller compact one. It does not always work very effectively. An SSH window that allows me to work on some headless servers can work fairly okay, but anything else like reading PDF documents or RDP is just a waste of time.
Other than geek value of "check this shit out man", it is just not very usable on a day to day basis to get anything done.
I really do need something the size of a tablet to feel comfortable using it, and until then, smart phones just don't appeal to me.
My Storm is a perfect compromise at this point. It has great battery life, acts as a phone pretty well, and the resolution and speed allow me to check emails fairly easy. Reading an attached PDF document is still PITA, but I don't get that many emails with attachments like that anyways. So it works for me.
I use my BB quite often with some other apps actually. Nothing that uses the Internet really heavy because all web browsing sucks on all phones equally. The form factor is just not suited for it.
You sure that's not because of the sorely outdated ARM11 CPU and the small, low resolution screen on your BB? I do tons of web browsing on my G2x and it's quite nice.
Absolutely sure. As as I stated before, it is the form factor alone, not how fast something loads. At some point resolution works against you. Sure, you might be able to render the whole page, but not see it. You need to see something? Zoom in.
Sorry, way too much of a pain in the ass.
It's about the size and what can be rendered, not how fast it works.
Having to zoom in constantly to part of a page and then back out, and then have half the page go away when entering text makes web surfing a bajillion times harder than it needs to be. Just too frustrating for me on a smart phone.
At a minimum, I would need a tablet.
However, short of a Playbook (which is $500 more than I am willing to spend without solid Android app support), every other tablet out there either has a totally fucking ridiculous data plan, or no data plan at all.
No data plan forces me to jailbreak, etc. my phone so that I can tether the tablet. I am not going to fight for it that hard. Rather keep my money till they figure out how to deliver a product that I want.
Until then, I have a laptop and a hotspot. Bulky, to be sure, but effective for what I actually need.
I was not railing against either actually.
Just pointing out that Android has more than its share of power usage problems.
I was just confirming to a poster that was saying the same exact thing. Apple and Android suck at power usage.