Allowing the application will reflect negatively on Apple just as much as censoring it (and not for reasons having to do with whether the criticism has substance). I can just imagine the headlines: "Apple is so dumb they will sell you the rope you can hang them with".
Since you admit that Kevin bears the lion's share of the responsibility, you should accept that the lion's share of the anger is directed against him for the same reason. It's foolish to say "you should be angry at Netcom" when you yourself admit that Kevin's responsibility is much more than Netcom's.
And he may have assured him that he didn't cause him financial harm, but that's not really true. The victim has to treat any breach as a serious threat and act as though his data could be abused. If the thief, in the end, just throws the data out, the victim still had to act, for his own safety, as if the thief didn't. And any damage suffered by the victim in this process is the fault of the thief.
I'd agree to just mod a Wii. It's not going to run bsnes but it's quiet, it's actually easier to mod than an Xbox, it will still emulate just about everything from the 16 bit era and before (unless your game only works on bsnes), and since it is a Wii, it plays Wii and Gamecube games so you won't need Dolphin.
It had a two player game, so it could handle two bullets, just not from the same player. Perhaps resetting the machine convinced it to allow one player to shoot both bullets.
It says they can't use sites *which allow* exclusive access to students, not that they can't use sites *for* exclusive access to students. So if the site allows private messages they can't even use the site for public messages.
Saying "if you pay higher taxes, we'll use them to fund ____" is a lie, and everyone knows it. The citizens have no control over where their tax money ends up, and even if the taxes are actually used for _____, money is fungible, so the government can just decide to reduce the remaining portion of the funding to free up tax funds for something else.
The obvious question is: who's going to use it? It'd be built in an area which is thinly populated on both sides and never has had much trade. The only way it can be worth it is if an entirely new movement of goods springs up after it's built. And does anyone really expect that to happen?
It's partly a result of political correctness. If you have a policy that allows for discretion, and it turns out that more kids of one race get punished than kids of another, extremely powerful groups will complain that that is because the school is racially discriminating (rather than the more likely explanation that more kids of one race are actually doing worse things). Having a policy which doesn't allow discretion will prevent this accusation.
Books are copyrighted. Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. It's not surprising that a government-granted monopoly gets leveraged to produce other monopolies. Getting rid of copyright entirely probably wouldn't be good for authors, but I can think of other types of government-granted monopolies that would not ultimately hurt authors but would be nicer for competing booksellers (for instance, having a system where you can have a copyright, but you can only sell non-exclusive rights, so any third party could always come to the authors and license the work for another service).
And anti-circumvention laws are also government interference.
To say that Amazon can become a monopoly without government backing misses the biggest pieces of government backing.
And yes, this also means government interference is propping up Microsoft. More so, in fact.
If you don't buy it, they say "our sales are down! It must be piracy! We need to put more DRM in to stop piracy!" (Whether or not you actually pirate it is irrelevant, since they see their sales are down either way.)
How is that context any different than the "out of context" quote? It shows the same thing as the first one: Microsoft admits that they used supercookies, but claims they had a bunch of internal policies and plans that make them harmless. You just have to trust that they're telling the truth about these internal plans that you can't actually see.
In fact your "full context" quote has more of the same; you can't verify that the information wasn't shared outside Microsoft, and you have no way to distinguish between "we accelerated the process of deletion" and "we weren't planning to delete anything, but the publicity got too bad".
YOU DON'T NEED TO SHOOT SOMEONE TO DEATH GOD DAMN IT, you can shoot him in the leg, shoulder, arm, whatever. Cops know about that.
You have been watching too many movies.
Shooting someone in the leg is still lethal force (since it's still possible for them to die that way), but also says "I didn't think I was actually justified in using lethal force". Intentionally shooting someone in the leg is, therefore, a very bad thing.
Either you have the right to use lethal force, in which case you need to use the method most likely to stop him (generally aiming for his center of mass), or you don't, in which case you can't shoot.
The protest on the street corner doesn't disrupt the use of the street for other people. This protest would have kept normal people from using the subway.
People have every right to keep you from getting to work.... if they are willing to bear the consequences.
Punishment for a crime isn't a transaction. We may say that someone "pays for his crimes" but that's a figure of speech--we don't say "it's okay to commit rape if you pay the jail time fee". It's supposed to indicate that we disapprove of the activity--period--and the punishment is an expression of our disapproval.
By your reasoning I could, oh, sell contaminated food and it would be okay as long as I paid the fine, since I've actually purchased a one-time right to sell contaminated food. I have no right to sell contaminated food at all; the penalty is a penalty, it is not a price, and paying it doesn't grant me the right..
Nobody has a *right* to stand in the way of me using transportation, even if they get arrested and sent to jail. The jail isn't payment to exercise a right, it's a punishment.
If you should have your phone service because you paid for it, shouldn't the BART customers have their train service because they paid for it? The aim of the protestors was to disrupt these customers' service, after all.
Illegal immigration is actually opposed to "let the market sort it out" in several ways. The illegal immigrants are coming from a country whose economic situation is worse than ours, and that situation is the fault of their country's government, which makes it non-free market. Also, foreign ownership of property in Mexico is subject to restrictions, and illegal immigration *to* Mexico is treated very harshly--the "free market" is one sided. Finally, any benefits that illegal aliens get from the US government are certainly not free market, even very generalized ones like police or public education if they're better than the homegrown Mexican versions.
The main reason that the Wii motion control succeeded and the Power Glove didn't is that it comes with the Wii. Since everyone has one, companies are willing to write games for it.
It's very hard for an add-on to a game machine to succeed as a general purpose device (although it can succeed as an accessory that is basically only used for the game it comes with). Game companies will write games for the lowest common denominator to sell to as wide an audience as possible, so they won't make the game depend on the add-on.
SyFy was lying just as much as Facebook and Google are lying. The name "Sci-Fi" is a descriptive term and as such is hard to trademark (though they could still trademark it in a particular font as a logo). They wanted to change it to something easier to trademark.
They can fire you for having a blue house, but while this may happen once or twice, they're not going to be able to go through all the people in the company and pick everyone with blue houses to fire them. It's just not practical to drive around to everyone's address just to see if their house looks weird enough.
As long as the information is not available in a couple of seconds on the Internet, they can't in *practice* fire people for having blue houses.
But it takes a very short time to examine someone's Facebook page and see that they're a fan of Pokemon, and since that's a kid's show they're obviously a pedophile and need to be fired immediately.
"No real bomber would be so obvious" is self-refuting. As soon as you decide not to suspect devices because they are too obvious, they become "not too obvious" because they are now the perfect thing for a bomber to use to avoid suspicion.
It's also true that 1) many bombers are stupid and *will* make bombs that are fairly obvious, and 2) bombing is a high-stress occupation and high stress leads bombers to act in stupid ways anyway.
The whole problem is that the mainstream media doesn't care about such topics. If they don't care enough to publish accurate information in the first place, they won't care enough to publish corrections. The media generally only publishes corrections when either there are legal implications or when the inaccuracy is embarrassing them in some way.
Besides, you're just demanding that people jump through hoops for no reason. Even if the media somehow did publish a correction, they're just going to verify the correction by using the same blogs as everyone else. They're not going to do investigative journalism or anything else that we're not doing anyway.
The proper fix to a reliable sources policy that leaves out the best sources of information is to change the policy, not to insist that the policy is okay because the complainer can always do something that you know very well won't work.
Slashdot Mirror
Allowing the application will reflect negatively on Apple just as much as censoring it (and not for reasons having to do with whether the criticism has substance). I can just imagine the headlines: "Apple is so dumb they will sell you the rope you can hang them with".
The Democrats and Obama are denying climate change? Wow.
Since you admit that Kevin bears the lion's share of the responsibility, you should accept that the lion's share of the anger is directed against him for the same reason. It's foolish to say "you should be angry at Netcom" when you yourself admit that Kevin's responsibility is much more than Netcom's.
And he may have assured him that he didn't cause him financial harm, but that's not really true. The victim has to treat any breach as a serious threat and act as though his data could be abused. If the thief, in the end, just throws the data out, the victim still had to act, for his own safety, as if the thief didn't. And any damage suffered by the victim in this process is the fault of the thief.
I'd agree to just mod a Wii. It's not going to run bsnes but it's quiet, it's actually easier to mod than an Xbox, it will still emulate just about everything from the 16 bit era and before (unless your game only works on bsnes), and since it is a Wii, it plays Wii and Gamecube games so you won't need Dolphin.
That's equivalent to saying "I followed the rules. I robbed the bank without shooting anyone. In fact, I let all the hostages go at the end."
Killing the hostages makes it worse, but in the end, robbing the bank is already not following the rules.
It had a two player game, so it could handle two bullets, just not from the same player. Perhaps resetting the machine convinced it to allow one player to shoot both bullets.
I believe Iran is run by a government. Whether they bribed the CA or hacked into the CA, it's certainly not free market capitalism.
It says they can't use sites *which allow* exclusive access to students, not that they can't use sites *for* exclusive access to students. So if the site allows private messages they can't even use the site for public messages.
Saying "if you pay higher taxes, we'll use them to fund ____" is a lie, and everyone knows it. The citizens have no control over where their tax money ends up, and even if the taxes are actually used for _____, money is fungible, so the government can just decide to reduce the remaining portion of the funding to free up tax funds for something else.
The obvious question is: who's going to use it? It'd be built in an area which is thinly populated on both sides and never has had much trade. The only way it can be worth it is if an entirely new movement of goods springs up after it's built. And does anyone really expect that to happen?
It's partly a result of political correctness. If you have a policy that allows for discretion, and it turns out that more kids of one race get punished than kids of another, extremely powerful groups will complain that that is because the school is racially discriminating (rather than the more likely explanation that more kids of one race are actually doing worse things). Having a policy which doesn't allow discretion will prevent this accusation.
Books are copyrighted. Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. It's not surprising that a government-granted monopoly gets leveraged to produce other monopolies. Getting rid of copyright entirely probably wouldn't be good for authors, but I can think of other types of government-granted monopolies that would not ultimately hurt authors but would be nicer for competing booksellers (for instance, having a system where you can have a copyright, but you can only sell non-exclusive rights, so any third party could always come to the authors and license the work for another service).
And anti-circumvention laws are also government interference.
To say that Amazon can become a monopoly without government backing misses the biggest pieces of government backing.
And yes, this also means government interference is propping up Microsoft. More so, in fact.
If you don't buy it, they say "our sales are down! It must be piracy! We need to put more DRM in to stop piracy!" (Whether or not you actually pirate it is irrelevant, since they see their sales are down either way.)
How is that context any different than the "out of context" quote? It shows the same thing as the first one: Microsoft admits that they used supercookies, but claims they had a bunch of internal policies and plans that make them harmless. You just have to trust that they're telling the truth about these internal plans that you can't actually see.
In fact your "full context" quote has more of the same; you can't verify that the information wasn't shared outside Microsoft, and you have no way to distinguish between "we accelerated the process of deletion" and "we weren't planning to delete anything, but the publicity got too bad".
If you don't do it, that won't get rid of your risk. Cue the stories about people without computers being sued.
YOU DON'T NEED TO SHOOT SOMEONE TO DEATH GOD DAMN IT, you can shoot him in the leg, shoulder, arm, whatever. Cops know about that.
You have been watching too many movies.
Shooting someone in the leg is still lethal force (since it's still possible for them to die that way), but also says "I didn't think I was actually justified in using lethal force". Intentionally shooting someone in the leg is, therefore, a very bad thing.
Either you have the right to use lethal force, in which case you need to use the method most likely to stop him (generally aiming for his center of mass), or you don't, in which case you can't shoot.
The protest on the street corner doesn't disrupt the use of the street for other people. This protest would have kept normal people from using the subway.
Punishment for a crime isn't a transaction. We may say that someone "pays for his crimes" but that's a figure of speech--we don't say "it's okay to commit rape if you pay the jail time fee". It's supposed to indicate that we disapprove of the activity--period--and the punishment is an expression of our disapproval.
By your reasoning I could, oh, sell contaminated food and it would be okay as long as I paid the fine, since I've actually purchased a one-time right to sell contaminated food. I have no right to sell contaminated food at all; the penalty is a penalty, it is not a price, and paying it doesn't grant me the right..
Nobody has a *right* to stand in the way of me using transportation, even if they get arrested and sent to jail. The jail isn't payment to exercise a right, it's a punishment.
If you should have your phone service because you paid for it, shouldn't the BART customers have their train service because they paid for it? The aim of the protestors was to disrupt these customers' service, after all.
Illegal immigration is actually opposed to "let the market sort it out" in several ways. The illegal immigrants are coming from a country whose economic situation is worse than ours, and that situation is the fault of their country's government, which makes it non-free market. Also, foreign ownership of property in Mexico is subject to restrictions, and illegal immigration *to* Mexico is treated very harshly--the "free market" is one sided. Finally, any benefits that illegal aliens get from the US government are certainly not free market, even very generalized ones like police or public education if they're better than the homegrown Mexican versions.
The main reason that the Wii motion control succeeded and the Power Glove didn't is that it comes with the Wii. Since everyone has one, companies are willing to write games for it.
It's very hard for an add-on to a game machine to succeed as a general purpose device (although it can succeed as an accessory that is basically only used for the game it comes with). Game companies will write games for the lowest common denominator to sell to as wide an audience as possible, so they won't make the game depend on the add-on.
SyFy was lying just as much as Facebook and Google are lying. The name "Sci-Fi" is a descriptive term and as such is hard to trademark (though they could still trademark it in a particular font as a logo). They wanted to change it to something easier to trademark.
They can fire you for having a blue house, but while this may happen once or twice, they're not going to be able to go through all the people in the company and pick everyone with blue houses to fire them. It's just not practical to drive around to everyone's address just to see if their house looks weird enough.
As long as the information is not available in a couple of seconds on the Internet, they can't in *practice* fire people for having blue houses.
But it takes a very short time to examine someone's Facebook page and see that they're a fan of Pokemon, and since that's a kid's show they're obviously a pedophile and need to be fired immediately.
"No real bomber would be so obvious" is self-refuting. As soon as you decide not to suspect devices because they are too obvious, they become "not too obvious" because they are now the perfect thing for a bomber to use to avoid suspicion.
It's also true that
1) many bombers are stupid and *will* make bombs that are fairly obvious, and
2) bombing is a high-stress occupation and high stress leads bombers to act in stupid ways anyway.
The whole problem is that the mainstream media doesn't care about such topics. If they don't care enough to publish accurate information in the first place, they won't care enough to publish corrections. The media generally only publishes corrections when either there are legal implications or when the inaccuracy is embarrassing them in some way.
Besides, you're just demanding that people jump through hoops for no reason. Even if the media somehow did publish a correction, they're just going to verify the correction by using the same blogs as everyone else. They're not going to do investigative journalism or anything else that we're not doing anyway.
The proper fix to a reliable sources policy that leaves out the best sources of information is to change the policy, not to insist that the policy is okay because the complainer can always do something that you know very well won't work.