What I find ironic is that the blogger under the "separate fact from hype" talks only about viruses, which as far as I know are pretty much non-existent in the mobile market, he ignores the fact that most of these stories are about malware ranging from various 'texting' apps that run up bills, those that dial 900 numbers, those that steal info ranging from contacts to key loggers, etc. None of these are viruses, but dangerous regardless.
Also while I don't doubt the explosion of 'malware', I also take it with a grain of salt that the numbers might be so small now that any increases will make a trend look huge, at least initially. That doesn't mean that the Android market doesn't have a problem. I think people tend to be more lax on smartphones than they are on computers since they are relatively new. A little caution and more proactive action from Google would be a smart move.
When it comes to privacy, I would have to eliminate Android. The very purpose of Android is to farm info via Google. Contrary to the open source stance, Google's business model is collecting and selling information.
Windows might be a good choice. I haven't heard much yet regarding their newest offering and privacy but given their past stance as a provider of the OS for profit rather than selling your data, I would think at least in the privacy arena, MS themselves should be ok. Malware wise, I also haven't heard of a lot of issues yet regarding their mobile offering. Ironically it's obscurity (read: lack of popularity) may actually provide it some safety in that regard.
Apple is also a possible selection if you don't mind the walled garden. Apple's curated garden also tends to keep the instances of malware down so the possibility of getting your information mined via third party app seems to be far less than Android. Apple is also like Microsoft in that regard that they aren't in the business of selling your personal data.
RIM is another that is much like MS and Apple in that they sell hardware for profit. The only drawback with RIM is that you must pipe your data through RIM's servers. They have the added benefit of being vetted by many corporations so that may be a deciding factor.
Of the 4 I'd either choose Apple or MS based on your criteria (arguments about open source/evil brouhaha, etc. disregarded as they weren't part of your question).
In this case not really, since the rare earths required come almost unilaterally from China you would be unable to get them anywhere else. I have to agree that it is the responsibility of China's government to ensure that factories comply with pollution laws. I also think it's a good thing that Apple is willing to work with specific vendors and require them to report their waste emissions. Apple has switched vendors in the past for vendors with poor working conditions so they at least attempt to be good corporate citizens in that respect.
They are also small fries compared to folks like Dell and HP but Dell and HP also have very good green scores. It's the low rent manufacturer's like Acer, Sharp, Toshiba, and shockingly, RIM.
Somewhat. Windows 8 is the first OS from MS to support the UEFI secure boot feature. In that way it's much like the DMA for Blu-Ray, meaning all links in the chain must support it in order for the disc to be legally decrypted (in theory at least..lol).
I've found other references to this rootkit though and apparently the flaw is actually exposed in the legacy BIOS, not in UEFI, or Windows 8.
According to Kleissner the new Windows 8 hack does not attack UEFI ’secure boot’ feature and currently only works on systems running legacy BIOSes.
They use this for geolocation. If the data wasn't useful to them, they wouldn't collect it, no? They are using data from uses personal AP's for their personal gain.
The courts would seem to disagree with you about this. Google went beyond simple SSID/MAC collection. They used packet sniffing.
“The court finds that plaintiffs plead facts sufficient to state a claim for violation of the Wiretap Act. In particular, plaintiffs plead that defendant intentionally created, approved of, and installed specially-designed software and technology into its Google Street View vehicles and used this technology to intercept plaintiffs’ data packets, arguably electronic communications, from plaintiffs’ personal Wi-Fi networks,” U.S. District Judge James Ware ruled. “Further, plaintiffs plead that the data packets were transmitted over Wi-Fi networks that were configured such that the packets were not readable by the general public without the use of sophisticated packet-sniffer technology.”
According to the Wiretap Act, amended in 1986, it’s not considered wiretapping “to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public,” according to the text of the federal wiretapping statute.
But Judge Ware said that interpretation did not apply to open, unencrypted Wi-Fi networks and instead applied only to “traditional radio services.”
Essentially a radio broadcast is setup in such a way that they intend and desire for people to tune in and pick it up and actively consume it's contents. A persons household WiFi would be hard to argue that same case since opening your personal WiFi spot is legally risky to the owner, and those that do so are most likely not aware of the fact that their WiFi is open or even what that means.
Take high powered Mic's as another example. Would you consider it an invasion of privacy if someone sat in front of your house and used one of these to record conversations in your household? Your conversations aren't encrypted, and most people wouldn't even think about this because they have an expectation of privacy. Now contrast that to packet sniffing an unencrypted WiFi network. You cannot assume that people have left an AP unencrypted with the intent to 'share' whatever communications travel on it. You also can't consider packet sniffing, or even SSID/MAC sniffing easily accessible to the public without stretching credulity quite a bit. Hell I'm a geek and I can't even tell you the names of the WiFi networks around my home. I don't care. I don't use them, I use my own. I certainly would never consider logging into one intentionally.
So in your view, Google should use my hardware and info for free (no payment to me), while they charge me by selling my information in order for me to use their services? At least I can Opt-In to Google. Apparently you have to Opt-Out in their case.
The latitude that the nerd crowd give google is amazing to me. If this was any other company they would be all up in arms. Google throws the geeks a bone by using a Linux kernel for the purpose of whoring out your personal data for a profit, and the geeks are falling over themselves to defend this sort of practice.
A home AP is NOT put out in public for the purpose of broadcasting it's info to the world. Typical wifi rarely reaches past someone's property at any usable range, just as someone might be able to get a glimpse in your window, but to sit there and peek in your windows would be an invasion of privacy, just as the police found when they tried to use heat sensing equipment that picked up thermal radiation through homes in order to detect the use of heat lamps and such equipment to grow weed. The supreme court agreed that a warrant was required to use thermal imaging. This doesn't strike me as being much different.
Certainly the heat is considered being 'broadcast' in a limited fashion once it leaves the house, and it can easily be picked up on the street by the proper equipment, but the home owner has a certain expectation of privacy here.
Funny. Mine doesn't do packet inspection from the vendor. Claiming everyone walks around scanning and cataloging neighbors WiFi is disingenuous at best. Goggle went beyond that, storing more info than SSID.
Yes, but most people don't walk around with scanners in their pocket. Range is also very limited. This should not be opt-out. Why does Google need to scan your home AP in any case?
Not nearly the same situation either. When you put something on the web, you make it accessible to millions/billions of people. Your home AP is accessible to maybe 2 or 3 houses.
You shouldn't have to 'opt out' of this. It should be opt in.
Exactly. It is not lighting fast, but it certainly doesn't freeze, become unresponsive, etc. It has a short delay before every page turn but every page turn is the same.
Somehow I don't think Apple has much to worry about:
From TFA:
At this point, diehard Android fans are laughing their heads off. Everyone knows that Android suffers significant, sporadic slowdowns — but we assumed, given how much effort Amazon had put into customizing the OS , that the Fire would somehow be different. It turns out that that simply isn’t the case; and in fact, it looks and feels like the Fire OS is just a reskinned version of Android. Worse yet, the Fire doesn’t have a dedicated home or back button — and lest you think that it makes good use of on-screen buttons, like Ice Cream Sandwich , think again: The Fire OS is based on Gingerbread, which means that Amazon had to hack in on-screen home, back, and menu buttons. Unsurprisingly, but still disappointingly, reviewers seem to find these soft buttons hard unresponsive and/or finicky. The Fire only has a single dedicated button, incidentally — a power button — and it’s in such a position that can be easily depressed when in use.
Suggesting that users won't notice unresponsive screens, buttons, an general lag is just burying your head in the sand. I foresee some initial excitement for this pad just like all the others before it, and then buyers remorse will kick in about the time the larger reviews do.
Except oddly enough, my iPhone has lasted longer than any previous cell I've owned. My first gen iPhone is still banging along. I went through 2 Razr's (bad hinges), and a sony (cracked screen).
Except for some scuff's on the glass, they seem just as durable. Hearsay of course, and I can only judge by what I've owned, but I don't find modern phones to be any more or less durable than my first cell phone, and certainly far more flexible, powerful, and useful.
An excellent case in point, and I think good example of why many assume that judges "create" law, when in fact they are still constrained to the framework of the law they are judging. The ruling did not step outside of the framework of the law by which it was judged, and although the judges ruling did have the appearance of creating new 'law', it in fact did not. The ruling reinforced congressional authority via the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. The ruling had a basis in existing law.
As I said, within the construct of the law they are ruling against, they have latitude, but that latitude is limited. They can't simply create something out of nothing as they must base those decisions on laws within them. This is not a black and white answer. Within the construct of the law they are ruling on the latitude allows them to interpret existing law but they can't create new law out of a vacuum.
In short, I don't disagree that they can create rulings within the construct of the law they are judging on but outside of that they would either quickly be overturned, or the ruling would be short lived, or at an extreme, cause impeachment proceedings. That has happened in the past to a supreme court judge who was found to have let his political leanings affect his judgements (see Samuel Chase). Of course in his case, the house impeached and the senate acquitted him, but the precedent is there. If a judge goes rouge to the point where their judgements do not fit within the confines of the law they can be impeached.
They have the appearance of that to some extent but these justices are still confined within the law they are ruling on. They can't just create law out of nothing. They are not a power absolute unto themselves. They too con be impeached just like the president.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a good example of that. The judges interpreted it's meaning to include personhood for a corporation based on their opinion, but they were still confined to the wording on the law as they interpreted it. Yes they have latitude in how they interpret it but they are still limited by the law (they can't explicitly rule contrary to something stated plainly for example or they would face impeachment). To wander too far from the construct of the law would most likely result in a short lived ruling with no basis in law.
Brown v Board of Education is no exception either. The judges ruled on the basic premise that segregation based on race was illegal, meaning the state had to treat all citizens equally in regards to education offered. The 'burden' to bus these students was offset by removing the need to two separate schools. The ruling didn't suddenly have students being bussed hundreds of miles. For example, the case in question was around a student having to travel 1.6 km as opposed to 7 blocks to a 'white' school.
A judge doesn't "create" law. They interpret it. Interesting idea, but the reality is they simply interpret existing law in a way that provides a favorable outcome to whatever partisan leanings they have.
In the context of partisan leanings, it is most decidedly a liberal vs conservative concept.
Actually, Scalia was found to be the most activist with Thomas running a close second. Conservative judges were also found to me more activist (willing to strike down rulings that lean towards a liberal bias). There's an interesting study on judicial partisanship that was done over 20 years of cases. The old conservative class of 'Liberal Activists Judges" turns out to not be entirely true after all, but rather leaning more towards a conservative trend towards begin activist.
In 1984, Congress explicitly sanctioned the granting of local cable monopolies. Between 1987 and 1990, nine states granted existing local franchises de facto monopoly rights in their markets. The 1984 cable act also banned telephone companies from offering cable television service, thereby protecting thousands of local cable monopolies from a natural competitor.
Largely as a result of the local monopolies, cable bills rose twice as fast as inflation in the late 1980s and early 1990s. (In the 65 cities that permitted two or more cable companies to compete, prices fell 20 to 25 percent.) Congress responded in 1992 by enacting the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act. The act's statement of policy declared Congress's intent to "promote the availability to the public of a diversity of views and information through cable television... and ensure that cable television operators do not have undue market power vis-a-vis video programmers and consumers."
While the 1992 act liberally praised competition, the act "eliminated damage awards against cities that refuse to issue competitive franchises," as Hazlett noted. Thus, local governments have nothing to lose from granting monopolies to favored cable companies. Congress perpetuated an earlier prohibition on telephone companies offering cable service, thereby preventing the provision of a greater "diversity of views."
The 1992 cable act responded to cable monopolies not by removing the barriers to competition but by increasing politicians' and bureaucrats' power to dictate how monopolists must behave. The act required the FCC to regulate local cable companies' monthly fees. The FCC responded in May 1993 by issuing 475 pages of arcane provisions to regulate cable pricing and promised to issue additional regulations to further clarify permitted pricing policies. Almost all of the 475 pages of regulations were "necessitated" by local and state governments' decisions to give cable operators a monopoly. Once the politicians gave cable operators monopoly control over their cable customers, the politicians naturally felt entitled to exercise control over the cable companies. First the government creates unnecessary monopolies, and then it issues hundreds of pages of unnecessary rules to try to make the monopolies serve the public interest — as such public interest is perceived by politicians and political appointees.
I think that eventually there will enough pressure on cable companies from the likes of online video rentals, Hulu, etc, that we will either end up with an 'online' cable company, with more of an Ala Carte selection, or something new will evolve similar to that evolve from one of the bigger partners now. There are already rumors of an entry from Apple TV and Sony is also vying for the next generation TV. It's only a matter of time as people realize that the value provided by cable TV is not much of a value at all. It's overpriced with 90% of the content you have to buy going unwatched for just the 10% that you do.
Not much like that at all. Those were kernel level drivers that executed with system level authority. This is something that would execute in the user space and it only does so because they reduced some restrictions allowing it to execute in a lower memory space, but it certainly doesn't have root authority.
Actually it was a flaw introduced last year when Apple relaxed restrictions, apparently to increase browser speed:
From TFA:
Miller became suspicious of a possible flaw in the code signing of Apple’s mobile devices with the release of iOS 4.3 early last year. To increase the speed of the phone’s browser, Miller noticed, Apple allowed javascript code from the Web to run on a much deeper level in the device’s memory than it had in previous versions of the operating system. In fact, he realized, the browser’s speed increase had forced Apple to create an exception for the browser to run unapproved code in a region of the device’s memory, which until then had been impossible. (Apple uses other security restrictions to prevent untrusted websites from using that exception to take control of the phone.)
The researcher soon dug up a bug that allowed him to expand that code-running exception to any application he’d like. “Apple runs all these checks to make sure only the browser can use the exception,” he says. “But in this one weird little corner case, it’s possible. And then you don’t have to worry about code-signing any more at all.”
Miller won’t say just what that bug is until his talk next week in order to give Apple more time to fix the flaw.
Miller’s exploit in some ways resembles another hack created by John Oberheide in Google’s competing Android operating system. Using a program called Rootstrap, he showed how an innocent-looking Android app could download and run malicious code after making its way onto a user’s phone. (He used a fake Twilight-themed application to demonstrate the potential attack.)
Meaning this can be closed just as easily at the loss of whatever speed perks the relaxed rules offered, or potentially just by resolving whatever exploit was found. In any case, it is news, and highly unlikely it would exist in every version of iOS since it appears to be in only 4.3 and higher.
Apparently you lack reading comprehension. I stated that I never did those things again, and I didn't. Perhaps you should re-read it.
I wasn't beaten, I was whipped. You are a perfect example of someone who is a perfect example of an armchair parent. Easy to take pot shots from the good seats. If you had a child who potentially put you at risk for thousands of dollars or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, you just might lose your temper as well. it's easy to take pot shots at someone else's parenting skills, but an entirely different case when people are poking their noses into your business.
You assumptions that I was beaten as a kid are a perfect example. You judge with no facts to back things up. Here you have a video of a girl who staged a camera, could easily be playing up the begging, and then posted it for spit years later for no other reason than revenge, and folks on here are all ready to make her a martyr.
As to her mother, she could be in 'cover your ass mode' for all I know. I haven't seen the evidence, and neither have you. It's not my business to judge this man guilty or innocent based off of a staged youtube video. I would expect better from someone on slashdot, but apparently that's asking a bit much. Ironic really as folks in here are usually quite clear about 'big brother'. From what I see in the video, this girl probably has some red marks on her ass and possibly her legs since she was squirming so much, but I'm guessing those were gone within 15 to 30 minutes. If she was abused as a child then the mother is also at risk for being charged, which could also be why the mother is suddenly 'sticking up' for her child. Odd that there is no reports of any abuse in the family, nothing noted by the schools, or any us usual trips to the hospital, etc. You know, those things that are typically used as evidence in such cases.
Lastly, I do not 'support child abuse' and frankly your rhetoric is infantile, and smacks of something you'd read on Fox news. I support the rights of the parents to discipline their children without America sticking their noses into private business. IF the child is abused, then it should be resorted, investigated, and dealt with. I see no proof punching in the face, blood, welts, or anything of the sort in the video, and knowing her motives and the fact that she prepared and taped this knowing she had put her father at risk for potentially thousands of dollars for copyright infringement, I can see why he lost his temper. I don't think that makes him a bad father. I think it makes him human. No one is perfect 24x7, 365 days a year.
I wasn't abused asshole. I was spanked. For doing common things like skipping school, getting into fights. I was never bruised, marked, or anything of the sort. I know right from wrong, and I respect and love my parents.
Only an idiot would take what they see on the internet as religious truth without any evidence to back up what they are seeing. Here you have a girl who planted a video camera knowing she was about to get spanked for doing something that could potentially cost her father hundreds of thousands of dollars. You also know that she posted this because her father took away her mercedes and allowance as an act of spite.
Slashdot Mirror
What I find ironic is that the blogger under the "separate fact from hype" talks only about viruses, which as far as I know are pretty much non-existent in the mobile market, he ignores the fact that most of these stories are about malware ranging from various 'texting' apps that run up bills, those that dial 900 numbers, those that steal info ranging from contacts to key loggers, etc. None of these are viruses, but dangerous regardless.
Also while I don't doubt the explosion of 'malware', I also take it with a grain of salt that the numbers might be so small now that any increases will make a trend look huge, at least initially. That doesn't mean that the Android market doesn't have a problem. I think people tend to be more lax on smartphones than they are on computers since they are relatively new. A little caution and more proactive action from Google would be a smart move.
Just sayin'...
When it comes to privacy, I would have to eliminate Android. The very purpose of Android is to farm info via Google. Contrary to the open source stance, Google's business model is collecting and selling information.
Windows might be a good choice. I haven't heard much yet regarding their newest offering and privacy but given their past stance as a provider of the OS for profit rather than selling your data, I would think at least in the privacy arena, MS themselves should be ok. Malware wise, I also haven't heard of a lot of issues yet regarding their mobile offering. Ironically it's obscurity (read: lack of popularity) may actually provide it some safety in that regard.
Apple is also a possible selection if you don't mind the walled garden. Apple's curated garden also tends to keep the instances of malware down so the possibility of getting your information mined via third party app seems to be far less than Android. Apple is also like Microsoft in that regard that they aren't in the business of selling your personal data.
RIM is another that is much like MS and Apple in that they sell hardware for profit. The only drawback with RIM is that you must pipe your data through RIM's servers. They have the added benefit of being vetted by many corporations so that may be a deciding factor.
Of the 4 I'd either choose Apple or MS based on your criteria (arguments about open source/evil brouhaha, etc. disregarded as they weren't part of your question).
In this case not really, since the rare earths required come almost unilaterally from China you would be unable to get them anywhere else. I have to agree that it is the responsibility of China's government to ensure that factories comply with pollution laws. I also think it's a good thing that Apple is willing to work with specific vendors and require them to report their waste emissions. Apple has switched vendors in the past for vendors with poor working conditions so they at least attempt to be good corporate citizens in that respect.
They are also small fries compared to folks like Dell and HP but Dell and HP also have very good green scores. It's the low rent manufacturer's like Acer, Sharp, Toshiba, and shockingly, RIM.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/cool-it/Guide-to-Greener-Electronics/
Somewhat. Windows 8 is the first OS from MS to support the UEFI secure boot feature. In that way it's much like the DMA for Blu-Ray, meaning all links in the chain must support it in order for the disc to be legally decrypted (in theory at least..lol).
I've found other references to this rootkit though and apparently the flaw is actually exposed in the legacy BIOS, not in UEFI, or Windows 8.
Ref: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/security-researcher-creates-windows-8-bootkit/16365
They use this for geolocation. If the data wasn't useful to them, they wouldn't collect it, no? They are using data from uses personal AP's for their personal gain.
The courts would seem to disagree with you about this. Google went beyond simple SSID/MAC collection. They used packet sniffing.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/google-wiretap-breach/
Essentially a radio broadcast is setup in such a way that they intend and desire for people to tune in and pick it up and actively consume it's contents. A persons household WiFi would be hard to argue that same case since opening your personal WiFi spot is legally risky to the owner, and those that do so are most likely not aware of the fact that their WiFi is open or even what that means.
Take high powered Mic's as another example. Would you consider it an invasion of privacy if someone sat in front of your house and used one of these to record conversations in your household? Your conversations aren't encrypted, and most people wouldn't even think about this because they have an expectation of privacy. Now contrast that to packet sniffing an unencrypted WiFi network. You cannot assume that people have left an AP unencrypted with the intent to 'share' whatever communications travel on it. You also can't consider packet sniffing, or even SSID/MAC sniffing easily accessible to the public without stretching credulity quite a bit. Hell I'm a geek and I can't even tell you the names of the WiFi networks around my home. I don't care. I don't use them, I use my own. I certainly would never consider logging into one intentionally.
So in your view, Google should use my hardware and info for free (no payment to me), while they charge me by selling my information in order for me to use their services? At least I can Opt-In to Google. Apparently you have to Opt-Out in their case.
The latitude that the nerd crowd give google is amazing to me. If this was any other company they would be all up in arms. Google throws the geeks a bone by using a Linux kernel for the purpose of whoring out your personal data for a profit, and the geeks are falling over themselves to defend this sort of practice.
A home AP is NOT put out in public for the purpose of broadcasting it's info to the world. Typical wifi rarely reaches past someone's property at any usable range, just as someone might be able to get a glimpse in your window, but to sit there and peek in your windows would be an invasion of privacy, just as the police found when they tried to use heat sensing equipment that picked up thermal radiation through homes in order to detect the use of heat lamps and such equipment to grow weed. The supreme court agreed that a warrant was required to use thermal imaging. This doesn't strike me as being much different.
http://cannabisnews.com/news/16/thread16568.shtml
Certainly the heat is considered being 'broadcast' in a limited fashion once it leaves the house, and it can easily be picked up on the street by the proper equipment, but the home owner has a certain expectation of privacy here.
Funny. Mine doesn't do packet inspection from the vendor. Claiming everyone walks around scanning and cataloging neighbors WiFi is disingenuous at best. Goggle went beyond that, storing more info than SSID.
Yes, but most people don't walk around with scanners in their pocket. Range is also very limited. This should not be opt-out. Why does Google need to scan your home AP in any case?
Not nearly the same situation either. When you put something on the web, you make it accessible to millions/billions of people. Your home AP is accessible to maybe 2 or 3 houses.
You shouldn't have to 'opt out' of this. It should be opt in.
Exactly. It is not lighting fast, but it certainly doesn't freeze, become unresponsive, etc. It has a short delay before every page turn but every page turn is the same.
Actually I have one. It's a good at what it does.
Guessing you're not a Southpark fan? ;)
Somehow I don't think Apple has much to worry about:
From TFA:
Suggesting that users won't notice unresponsive screens, buttons, an general lag is just burying your head in the sand. I foresee some initial excitement for this pad just like all the others before it, and then buyers remorse will kick in about the time the larger reviews do.
Except oddly enough, my iPhone has lasted longer than any previous cell I've owned. My first gen iPhone is still banging along. I went through 2 Razr's (bad hinges), and a sony (cracked screen).
Except for some scuff's on the glass, they seem just as durable. Hearsay of course, and I can only judge by what I've owned, but I don't find modern phones to be any more or less durable than my first cell phone, and certainly far more flexible, powerful, and useful.
An excellent case in point, and I think good example of why many assume that judges "create" law, when in fact they are still constrained to the framework of the law they are judging. The ruling did not step outside of the framework of the law by which it was judged, and although the judges ruling did have the appearance of creating new 'law', it in fact did not. The ruling reinforced congressional authority via the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. The ruling had a basis in existing law.
As I said, within the construct of the law they are ruling against, they have latitude, but that latitude is limited. They can't simply create something out of nothing as they must base those decisions on laws within them. This is not a black and white answer. Within the construct of the law they are ruling on the latitude allows them to interpret existing law but they can't create new law out of a vacuum.
In short, I don't disagree that they can create rulings within the construct of the law they are judging on but outside of that they would either quickly be overturned, or the ruling would be short lived, or at an extreme, cause impeachment proceedings. That has happened in the past to a supreme court judge who was found to have let his political leanings affect his judgements (see Samuel Chase). Of course in his case, the house impeached and the senate acquitted him, but the precedent is there. If a judge goes rouge to the point where their judgements do not fit within the confines of the law they can be impeached.
They have the appearance of that to some extent but these justices are still confined within the law they are ruling on. They can't just create law out of nothing. They are not a power absolute unto themselves. They too con be impeached just like the president.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a good example of that. The judges interpreted it's meaning to include personhood for a corporation based on their opinion, but they were still confined to the wording on the law as they interpreted it. Yes they have latitude in how they interpret it but they are still limited by the law (they can't explicitly rule contrary to something stated plainly for example or they would face impeachment). To wander too far from the construct of the law would most likely result in a short lived ruling with no basis in law.
Brown v Board of Education is no exception either. The judges ruled on the basic premise that segregation based on race was illegal, meaning the state had to treat all citizens equally in regards to education offered. The 'burden' to bus these students was offset by removing the need to two separate schools. The ruling didn't suddenly have students being bussed hundreds of miles. For example, the case in question was around a student having to travel 1.6 km as opposed to 7 blocks to a 'white' school.
A judge doesn't "create" law. They interpret it. Interesting idea, but the reality is they simply interpret existing law in a way that provides a favorable outcome to whatever partisan leanings they have.
In the context of partisan leanings, it is most decidedly a liberal vs conservative concept.
Actually, Scalia was found to be the most activist with Thomas running a close second. Conservative judges were also found to me more activist (willing to strike down rulings that lean towards a liberal bias). There's an interesting study on judicial partisanship that was done over 20 years of cases. The old conservative class of 'Liberal Activists Judges" turns out to not be entirely true after all, but rather leaning more towards a conservative trend towards begin activist.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2008/08/04_sunstein.html
Educate yourself: http://www.fff.org/freedom/0598d.asp
I think that eventually there will enough pressure on cable companies from the likes of online video rentals, Hulu, etc, that we will either end up with an 'online' cable company, with more of an Ala Carte selection, or something new will evolve similar to that evolve from one of the bigger partners now. There are already rumors of an entry from Apple TV and Sony is also vying for the next generation TV. It's only a matter of time as people realize that the value provided by cable TV is not much of a value at all. It's overpriced with 90% of the content you have to buy going unwatched for just the 10% that you do.
Not much like that at all. Those were kernel level drivers that executed with system level authority. This is something that would execute in the user space and it only does so because they reduced some restrictions allowing it to execute in a lower memory space, but it certainly doesn't have root authority.
Actually it was a flaw introduced last year when Apple relaxed restrictions, apparently to increase browser speed:
From TFA:
Meaning this can be closed just as easily at the loss of whatever speed perks the relaxed rules offered, or potentially just by resolving whatever exploit was found. In any case, it is news, and highly unlikely it would exist in every version of iOS since it appears to be in only 4.3 and higher.
Apparently you lack reading comprehension. I stated that I never did those things again, and I didn't. Perhaps you should re-read it.
I wasn't beaten, I was whipped. You are a perfect example of someone who is a perfect example of an armchair parent. Easy to take pot shots from the good seats. If you had a child who potentially put you at risk for thousands of dollars or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, you just might lose your temper as well. it's easy to take pot shots at someone else's parenting skills, but an entirely different case when people are poking their noses into your business.
You assumptions that I was beaten as a kid are a perfect example. You judge with no facts to back things up. Here you have a video of a girl who staged a camera, could easily be playing up the begging, and then posted it for spit years later for no other reason than revenge, and folks on here are all ready to make her a martyr.
As to her mother, she could be in 'cover your ass mode' for all I know. I haven't seen the evidence, and neither have you. It's not my business to judge this man guilty or innocent based off of a staged youtube video. I would expect better from someone on slashdot, but apparently that's asking a bit much. Ironic really as folks in here are usually quite clear about 'big brother'. From what I see in the video, this girl probably has some red marks on her ass and possibly her legs since she was squirming so much, but I'm guessing those were gone within 15 to 30 minutes. If she was abused as a child then the mother is also at risk for being charged, which could also be why the mother is suddenly 'sticking up' for her child. Odd that there is no reports of any abuse in the family, nothing noted by the schools, or any us usual trips to the hospital, etc. You know, those things that are typically used as evidence in such cases.
Lastly, I do not 'support child abuse' and frankly your rhetoric is infantile, and smacks of something you'd read on Fox news. I support the rights of the parents to discipline their children without America sticking their noses into private business. IF the child is abused, then it should be resorted, investigated, and dealt with. I see no proof punching in the face, blood, welts, or anything of the sort in the video, and knowing her motives and the fact that she prepared and taped this knowing she had put her father at risk for potentially thousands of dollars for copyright infringement, I can see why he lost his temper. I don't think that makes him a bad father. I think it makes him human. No one is perfect 24x7, 365 days a year.
I wasn't abused asshole. I was spanked. For doing common things like skipping school, getting into fights. I was never bruised, marked, or anything of the sort. I know right from wrong, and I respect and love my parents.
Only an idiot would take what they see on the internet as religious truth without any evidence to back up what they are seeing. Here you have a girl who planted a video camera knowing she was about to get spanked for doing something that could potentially cost her father hundreds of thousands of dollars. You also know that she posted this because her father took away her mercedes and allowance as an act of spite.
Whatever works for you though.