They already keep a fingerprint database. Passport? Fingerprinted. There are also 4 states that require fingerprinting for a drivers license (California, Colorado, Georgia, and Texas). Those 4 states make up about 1/4 of the entire U.S. population. People getting general assistance (GA) have also been required to give fingerprints since 1996. The same is true for many criminal history checks. Work in a government job? Fingerprinted. Teachers, Food Service workers? Fingerprinted. Foster parents? Ditto. Law enforcement, Judicial positions, handgun permits, etc. The list goes on and on.
Chances are good that you are already in a database somewhere. The same hysteria surrounded video surveillance, which is widespread. The fact that you leave your fingerprints everywhere would tend to make them less of a illegal search issue, and more of a gray area as they are often used as a simple means of identification these days.
Technically it's all of Season 5. The last season is not considered part of Season 5, but rather it's called the Final Season.
Amazon, Google, Apple, are all selling it this way, as defined by AMC. Just because you think that 'Season 5' should include 16 episodes means nothing. AMC defines what a season of the show is compiled and sold as, and they have two seasons: "Season 5" and "The Final Season".
Since Apple does not define what is in a season of the show, they have met their obligation with the season pass. It gave this person access to the entire Season 5, which AMC defined as 8 episodes, and Apple delivered.
To be fair, anyone willing to take advice from a geek, who lives in his basement in a bathrobe, probably deserves the end result.
It does nothing but serve his ego (and yes I know I will get flamed for this). There are valid reasons to keep things civil on the surface. Claiming we should just 'let it all out' in a professional environment is obviously not the way that the rest of the professional world has gone, with good reason. It's called acting like an adult, and most professionals learned to do so at an early age.
Linus should not be held to some different standard.
Does this mean everything they do is great? Of course not. Does it mean it doesn't require higher scrutiny. Of course not, but it has proven to be effective. There is no reason they can't find a happy middle ground.
The type of information Snowden is leaking just makes this type of cooperation more difficult to achieve. Political realities will make this type of communication much more difficult to even approach for a politician.
How has this undermined restrictions on domestic spying? Your complaints sound like vague speaking points with no meat in them. How specifically has this information sharing harmed you?
I also disagree about Europe being a client state. They have never been any sort of client state of the U.S.. I think you mistake common interests and goals for subjugation. In many ways I see the type of controls in Europe as profoundly more invasive than those in the U.S., but also more in the open. I can't speak to which I would prefer as I haven't spent enough time in Europe to make a judgement however.
Any time you foster communication it's a good thing. The result of this will be suspicion, and politicians will be less willing to share information, even amend each countries intelligence communities. Something that may have been considered acceptable prior to these leaks, could certainly become a taboo subject post relegation.
Not all information sharing is evil, or to the detriment of it's citizens. Surely the open source community can understand that very basic premise?
Unfortunate, yes, but something I feel strongly about. I do think his original disclosure was a good thing. It brought the patriot act back into public debate, which is a good thing, but he's since started releasing information that just isn't all that useful. It's no great disclosure that communications into and out of the U.S. are monitored. I still recall the flame wars on/. when it was disclosed a few years ago. I'm also not naive enough to think that any embassy on foreign soil probably isn't bugged to the hilt. It's silly that these countries have to go through these motions, feigning shock when they are all undoubtedly doing the exact same thing.
Now he's just hemorrhaging information that will simply force a political response from whoever it affects, regardless of the realities. it would be political poison if they didn't respond.
Part of the troll rating me be simply 'loyalty' to a fellow geek. I get that. Another part to possibly due to the civil liberty types. I get that too. I am not however, about to think that everything a government does should be out in the open. In a perfect world, fine, but we don't live in a perfect world. It's a dangerous place, and some state secrets were not mean to be put on blast.
Snowden went far beyond being a 'patriot'. When he leaked evidence of spying on other countries (something ALL countries do), it forced a response where before it was generally understood 'business as usual'.
Leaking this data just increases global tensions and serves no purpose. Anyone foolish enough to believe any developed country is not doing this is a fool.
I was initially in support of his original ideal of shedding light on programs that the patriot act spawned, but he's gone far beyond that. The discussions around the patriot act were needed and healthy. That said, did he expect to be greeted as a hero for embarrassing the U.S. and leaking classified information?
I think his original ideals turned bitter and he turned petty and careless in what he released as things escalated.
Technically, they could come from either. There is no guarantee that something from the Play store is clean. I also have to wonder what will happen to the millions of phones that simply don't get updates from the handset vendors. Granted the geek crowd can probably update most, but there will be literally millions upon millions that will have this vulnerability until they die or are replaced.
What page in the bible can I find this traditional definition of marriage? Is that the one where they sell the daughter for a goat and some gold, or the one where they marry her to her husbands brother, or the one where she's one of 20 wives. I can never tell.
With few local exceptions, until 1545, Catholic marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.[14][15] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.
(14)^ a b upenn.edu Excerpt from Marriage, Sex, and Civic Culture in Late Medieval London "the sacramental bond of marriage could be made only through the freely given consent of both parties" (15)^ "marriage.about.com" . marriage.about.com. 2010-06-16. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
I'm not sure why you think marriage tradition in ancient Asian cultures is significant to Judeo Christian origins of marriage here in the U.S. The two religions have no common root other than 'religion'. Many parts of the world have no religion, and such are performed by the local leader. Religion in Europe however, IS relevant, and even there, the Church largely considered marriage a private civil matter and one that they didn't involve themselves in until the 1500's.
Civil Union is a 20th century term. I challenge you to find any reference to such in the history books prior to the 20th century. It's always been called marriage and religion has no claim on the word. Religion is pretty much irrelevant to marriage here in the US. You have a Wedding in church. The state is the one who issues your marriage license. One is optional. The other is not.
An interesting read if you can find the time. A simple example: If congress directed the President to terminate all persons of Muslim decent, would the President be bound by law to execute the law as written by Congress?
Once DOMA came under higher scrutiny in the appellate courts, it allowed the DOJ and the Executive to require more than theoretical use cases for defending the law. It also allowed them to call into question the constitutionality of such laws and whether or not the Constitution granted them the right to enforce a law that seemed to be in direct contradiction to said Constitution (arguably the highest law in the land).
First, the Constitution never empowers the President to enforce unconsti- tutional statutes. He no more has the power to enforce such statutes than he has power to enforce the statutes of Georgia or Germany. Second, the President’s duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution requires the President to disregard unconstitutional statutes. When the President enforces a statute he regards as unconstitutional, he violates the Constitution no less than if he were to imprison citizens without hope of trial. Third, the Faithful Execution Clause requires the President to choose the Constitution over unconstitutional laws, in the same way that courts must choose the former over the latter. Consistent with these understandings, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson argued that executives could not enforce unconstitutional laws. Indeed, President Jefferson halted Sedition Act prosecu- tions on grounds that the Act was unconstitutional. According to Jefferson, his duty to defend the Constitution barred him from executing measures that violated it.
No, it is his Constitutional duty to enforce the Laws of this United States, AND to Uphold the Constitution, and the two CAN and DO come into conflict from time to time. There have been some 13 times in the past when the Executive refused to enforce a law they saw as unconstitutional. This does not mean they can simply ignore a law. They must have a well reasoned argument to do so. In the case of DOMA, his stance was justified as of this morning's ruling.
Your claim that he is somehow usurping the rights of the Legislative branch are out of hand until such as time as either the legislative branch modifies the power granted under the Patriot Act, or until the Judicial Branch declares such laws as unconstitutional. Tin Foil hats aside, having phone numbers logged into a database that requires a warrant and approval from FISA to even view to the courts mind, meets the legal requirements of unreasonable search and seizure. They cannot just go into the database 'just cause'. They must present a valid concern related to suspected terrorist activity just to search the database, receive approval from the court, which itself must report back to Congress on a regular basis for auditing purposes.
Interesting. So if congress passes the Patriot Act that makes the Executive's actions 'legal', you would still label the Executive as a Fuhrer for executing the laws that Congress passed?
Of course, if he was a better 'Fuhrer, you'd be baking in an oven somewhere no doubt...
A thousand times NO. The word "Marriage" is NOT owned by any religious group. It was first and foremost a civil term. It was incorporated into a religious ceremony until the 1500's in Christian circles. Marriage was known in the bible but largely considered a private matter that didn't involve the church. Why should a civil union surrender to the demands of a religion that is usurping the word Marriage?
What specific rights are you implying 'Fuhrer Obama' took away from you? I'm also curious how he did so, being in the Executive, rather than the Legislative branch.
They also don't seem to appreciate the fact that if we replaced 'Android' with IE, then this conversation would be going a totally different direction. I never would have thought I'd see/. sitting here arguing about the merits of someone staying on software that is no longer updated, has security exposures, and is 3-4 years old, and arguing until they are blue in the facet that it's a 'good' thing, or just unimportant.
This crowd especially should be pushing Google to force handset manufacturer's to keep their gear current, or to at least close vulnerabilities. Claiming Google doesn't have the power to do so is rediculous. The simple fact that you can get an iPhone 3G or iPhone 4 with the latest version of iOS 6 is a good thing. The fact that you can still buy an 'new' Android phone with Gingerbread, is a pretty sad state and not something to be proud of, and no amount of fan cover can hide that fact.
Getting the latest API isn't the only reason to keep an OS current. All these fans are doing is giving handset vendors a free pass.
Also ironic that they are slamming the fact that a 4 year old phone doesn't get all of the features of a brand new device with new hardware, when the old phones that never see an update get none of the new features offered by an OS update. Unless they are skilled enough to jailbreak, or even know what to look for, they just stick with whatever it came with, security exposures and all.
Three things to consider. New hardware releases for these iOS devices hit every 12-18 months, with moderate to substantial gains in processing and graphics power. Couple that with cheap digital games costing a fraction of console prices, and simple portability from one iOS device to the next, even when going to an entirely new device, or even from a phone to a pad, and the appeal could definitely be there.
Actually it's not. You can stream the output from the iPhone display directly to a TV via WiFi and Airplay, meaning any game you put on an iOS device can be displayed via an Apple TV. Combine that with a game controller, and you in essence have a digital delivery game console, that fits in your pocket.
It will be interesting to see what kind of lag that WiFi streaming introduces, but the basics are all there.
You should probably re-read the post, rather than going on for 3 pages.
"The underlying structure is irrelevant in a task oriented file system. "
I didn't state that it doesn't use any file system. I was speaking specifically to the file system, such as it is, presented to the end user. An iOS device doesn't present any of the underlying file system to the end user, and really has no need to. You as a geek may have need to specify which app you want to open some.TXT file with, but if the app that created it serves teh purpose, then it's fine for 99.9% of the users out there. The context you claim you need, is provided by the app that creates or works with the file in question.
A good example: I use a gym app frequently, and occasionally beta new builds of iOS. As a regular part of that process, I backup those files prior to installing any new system updates. I don't need to know 'where' on the device they are stored It's irrelevant to my needs. I just select my Gym app, and I get a list of the SQL and user files presented to me with a Save button.
It is his fault that the wrong information was leaked. He enabled such a leak by handing over the docs in the first place, and must take responsibility as to how that data was handled after it left his hands. The end result is definitely his responsibility. Right or Wong.
As far as this leak goes, I do thing they will make an example of this guy, again, right or wrong. I think most who follow what the patriot act did probably assume this was already happening, but I don't think they understood the scope. Having it brought to light is important, but ultimately, I think he should have stayed anonymous.
You imply his ideology was socialist in nature (or at least part of it was), and then contradict that statement in your second sentence stating he essentially used the socialist party to gain enough power to the point where they were no longer needed.
I don't think you understand the definition of ideology.
Simply claiming to be something, doesn't make it so. The reference above to the Democratic People's Republic of North-Korea is a good example, as are right wing extremists claiming to be born again Christians, yet follow none of the basic tenants of that religion. Socialism for Hitler was nothing more than a vehicle, not an ideology. The majority of scholars agree that his leanings were definitely right wing, although he often attacked both parties when they strayed from his personal ideology.
Any civilization today has aspects of socialism. it is nearly impossible to have a structured society without some form of body politic which actively promotes social services that the public recognizes are necessary for basic services. The very nature of civilization requires aspects of socialism to thrive.
It is simply the degree to which they think the government should control things that defines 'socialism'.
Slashdot Mirror
The Anandtech link that rsborg posted alone is worth it's own /. article. A VERY interesting read.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review
Head, meat tinfoil. Tinfoil, head...
They already keep a fingerprint database. Passport? Fingerprinted. There are also 4 states that require fingerprinting for a drivers license (California, Colorado, Georgia, and Texas). Those 4 states make up about 1/4 of the entire U.S. population. People getting general assistance (GA) have also been required to give fingerprints since 1996. The same is true for many criminal history checks. Work in a government job? Fingerprinted. Teachers, Food Service workers? Fingerprinted. Foster parents? Ditto. Law enforcement, Judicial positions, handgun permits, etc. The list goes on and on.
Chances are good that you are already in a database somewhere. The same hysteria surrounded video surveillance, which is widespread. The fact that you leave your fingerprints everywhere would tend to make them less of a illegal search issue, and more of a gray area as they are often used as a simple means of identification these days.
Technically it's all of Season 5. The last season is not considered part of Season 5, but rather it's called the Final Season.
Amazon, Google, Apple, are all selling it this way, as defined by AMC. Just because you think that 'Season 5' should include 16 episodes means nothing. AMC defines what a season of the show is compiled and sold as, and they have two seasons: "Season 5" and "The Final Season".
Since Apple does not define what is in a season of the show, they have met their obligation with the season pass. It gave this person access to the entire Season 5, which AMC defined as 8 episodes, and Apple delivered.
I'm betting this lawsuit will go no where.
To be fair, anyone willing to take advice from a geek, who lives in his basement in a bathrobe, probably deserves the end result.
It does nothing but serve his ego (and yes I know I will get flamed for this). There are valid reasons to keep things civil on the surface. Claiming we should just 'let it all out' in a professional environment is obviously not the way that the rest of the professional world has gone, with good reason. It's called acting like an adult, and most professionals learned to do so at an early age.
Linus should not be held to some different standard.
A good example of cooperation between intelligence communities:
http://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-nsas-high-tech-surveillance-helped-europeans-catch-terrorists
Does this mean everything they do is great? Of course not. Does it mean it doesn't require higher scrutiny. Of course not, but it has proven to be effective. There is no reason they can't find a happy middle ground.
The type of information Snowden is leaking just makes this type of cooperation more difficult to achieve. Political realities will make this type of communication much more difficult to even approach for a politician.
How has this undermined restrictions on domestic spying? Your complaints sound like vague speaking points with no meat in them. How specifically has this information sharing harmed you?
I also disagree about Europe being a client state. They have never been any sort of client state of the U.S.. I think you mistake common interests and goals for subjugation. In many ways I see the type of controls in Europe as profoundly more invasive than those in the U.S., but also more in the open. I can't speak to which I would prefer as I haven't spent enough time in Europe to make a judgement however.
Ugh...mobile spell check :\
That should be "even among each countries intelligence communities" and "could certainly become a taboo subject post revelation"
Any time you foster communication it's a good thing. The result of this will be suspicion, and politicians will be less willing to share information, even amend each countries intelligence communities. Something that may have been considered acceptable prior to these leaks, could certainly become a taboo subject post relegation.
Not all information sharing is evil, or to the detriment of it's citizens. Surely the open source community can understand that very basic premise?
Unfortunate, yes, but something I feel strongly about. I do think his original disclosure was a good thing. It brought the patriot act back into public debate, which is a good thing, but he's since started releasing information that just isn't all that useful. It's no great disclosure that communications into and out of the U.S. are monitored. I still recall the flame wars on /. when it was disclosed a few years ago. I'm also not naive enough to think that any embassy on foreign soil probably isn't bugged to the hilt. It's silly that these countries have to go through these motions, feigning shock when they are all undoubtedly doing the exact same thing.
Now he's just hemorrhaging information that will simply force a political response from whoever it affects, regardless of the realities. it would be political poison if they didn't respond.
Part of the troll rating me be simply 'loyalty' to a fellow geek. I get that. Another part to possibly due to the civil liberty types. I get that too. I am not however, about to think that everything a government does should be out in the open. In a perfect world, fine, but we don't live in a perfect world. It's a dangerous place, and some state secrets were not mean to be put on blast.
Snowden went far beyond being a 'patriot'. When he leaked evidence of spying on other countries (something ALL countries do), it forced a response where before it was generally understood 'business as usual'.
Leaking this data just increases global tensions and serves no purpose. Anyone foolish enough to believe any developed country is not doing this is a fool.
I was initially in support of his original ideal of shedding light on programs that the patriot act spawned, but he's gone far beyond that. The discussions around the patriot act were needed and healthy. That said, did he expect to be greeted as a hero for embarrassing the U.S. and leaking classified information?
I think his original ideals turned bitter and he turned petty and careless in what he released as things escalated.
Technically, they could come from either. There is no guarantee that something from the Play store is clean. I also have to wonder what will happen to the millions of phones that simply don't get updates from the handset vendors. Granted the geek crowd can probably update most, but there will be literally millions upon millions that will have this vulnerability until they die or are replaced.
What page in the bible can I find this traditional definition of marriage? Is that the one where they sell the daughter for a goat and some gold, or the one where they marry her to her husbands brother, or the one where she's one of 20 wives. I can never tell.
[ Ref - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_(Catholic_Church) ]
(14)^ a b upenn.edu Excerpt from Marriage, Sex, and Civic Culture in Late Medieval London "the sacramental bond of marriage could be made only through the freely given consent of both parties"
(15)^ "marriage.about.com" . marriage.about.com. 2010-06-16. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
I'm not sure why you think marriage tradition in ancient Asian cultures is significant to Judeo Christian origins of marriage here in the U.S. The two religions have no common root other than 'religion'. Many parts of the world have no religion, and such are performed by the local leader. Religion in Europe however, IS relevant, and even there, the Church largely considered marriage a private civil matter and one that they didn't involve themselves in until the 1500's.
Civil Union is a 20th century term. I challenge you to find any reference to such in the history books prior to the 20th century. It's always been called marriage and religion has no claim on the word. Religion is pretty much irrelevant to marriage here in the US. You have a Wedding in church. The state is the one who issues your marriage license. One is optional. The other is not.
An interesting read if you can find the time. A simple example: If congress directed the President to terminate all persons of Muslim decent, would the President be bound by law to execute the law as written by Congress?
Once DOMA came under higher scrutiny in the appellate courts, it allowed the DOJ and the Executive to require more than theoretical use cases for defending the law. It also allowed them to call into question the constitutionality of such laws and whether or not the Constitution granted them the right to enforce a law that seemed to be in direct contradiction to said Constitution (arguably the highest law in the land).
[Ref - http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/96-5/Prakash.PDF..]
No, it is his Constitutional duty to enforce the Laws of this United States, AND to Uphold the Constitution, and the two CAN and DO come into conflict from time to time. There have been some 13 times in the past when the Executive refused to enforce a law they saw as unconstitutional. This does not mean they can simply ignore a law. They must have a well reasoned argument to do so. In the case of DOMA, his stance was justified as of this morning's ruling.
Your claim that he is somehow usurping the rights of the Legislative branch are out of hand until such as time as either the legislative branch modifies the power granted under the Patriot Act, or until the Judicial Branch declares such laws as unconstitutional. Tin Foil hats aside, having phone numbers logged into a database that requires a warrant and approval from FISA to even view to the courts mind, meets the legal requirements of unreasonable search and seizure. They cannot just go into the database 'just cause'. They must present a valid concern related to suspected terrorist activity just to search the database, receive approval from the court, which itself must report back to Congress on a regular basis for auditing purposes.
In short, your issue is with Congress.
Interesting. So if congress passes the Patriot Act that makes the Executive's actions 'legal', you would still label the Executive as a Fuhrer for executing the laws that Congress passed?
Of course, if he was a better 'Fuhrer, you'd be baking in an oven somewhere no doubt...
A thousand times NO. The word "Marriage" is NOT owned by any religious group. It was first and foremost a civil term. It was incorporated into a religious ceremony until the 1500's in Christian circles. Marriage was known in the bible but largely considered a private matter that didn't involve the church. Why should a civil union surrender to the demands of a religion that is usurping the word Marriage?
What specific rights are you implying 'Fuhrer Obama' took away from you? I'm also curious how he did so, being in the Executive, rather than the Legislative branch.
They also don't seem to appreciate the fact that if we replaced 'Android' with IE, then this conversation would be going a totally different direction. I never would have thought I'd see /. sitting here arguing about the merits of someone staying on software that is no longer updated, has security exposures, and is 3-4 years old, and arguing until they are blue in the facet that it's a 'good' thing, or just unimportant.
This crowd especially should be pushing Google to force handset manufacturer's to keep their gear current, or to at least close vulnerabilities. Claiming Google doesn't have the power to do so is rediculous. The simple fact that you can get an iPhone 3G or iPhone 4 with the latest version of iOS 6 is a good thing. The fact that you can still buy an 'new' Android phone with Gingerbread, is a pretty sad state and not something to be proud of, and no amount of fan cover can hide that fact.
Getting the latest API isn't the only reason to keep an OS current. All these fans are doing is giving handset vendors a free pass.
Also ironic that they are slamming the fact that a 4 year old phone doesn't get all of the features of a brand new device with new hardware, when the old phones that never see an update get none of the new features offered by an OS update. Unless they are skilled enough to jailbreak, or even know what to look for, they just stick with whatever it came with, security exposures and all.
Three things to consider. New hardware releases for these iOS devices hit every 12-18 months, with moderate to substantial gains in processing and graphics power. Couple that with cheap digital games costing a fraction of console prices, and simple portability from one iOS device to the next, even when going to an entirely new device, or even from a phone to a pad, and the appeal could definitely be there.
Actually it's not. You can stream the output from the iPhone display directly to a TV via WiFi and Airplay, meaning any game you put on an iOS device can be displayed via an Apple TV. Combine that with a game controller, and you in essence have a digital delivery game console, that fits in your pocket.
It will be interesting to see what kind of lag that WiFi streaming introduces, but the basics are all there.
You should probably re-read the post, rather than going on for 3 pages.
"The underlying structure is irrelevant in a task oriented file system. "
I didn't state that it doesn't use any file system. I was speaking specifically to the file system, such as it is, presented to the end user. An iOS device doesn't present any of the underlying file system to the end user, and really has no need to. You as a geek may have need to specify which app you want to open some .TXT file with, but if the app that created it serves teh purpose, then it's fine for 99.9% of the users out there. The context you claim you need, is provided by the app that creates or works with the file in question.
A good example: I use a gym app frequently, and occasionally beta new builds of iOS. As a regular part of that process, I backup those files prior to installing any new system updates. I don't need to know 'where' on the device they are stored It's irrelevant to my needs. I just select my Gym app, and I get a list of the SQL and user files presented to me with a Save button.
It is his fault that the wrong information was leaked. He enabled such a leak by handing over the docs in the first place, and must take responsibility as to how that data was handled after it left his hands. The end result is definitely his responsibility. Right or Wong.
As far as this leak goes, I do thing they will make an example of this guy, again, right or wrong. I think most who follow what the patriot act did probably assume this was already happening, but I don't think they understood the scope. Having it brought to light is important, but ultimately, I think he should have stayed anonymous.
You imply his ideology was socialist in nature (or at least part of it was), and then contradict that statement in your second sentence stating he essentially used the socialist party to gain enough power to the point where they were no longer needed.
I don't think you understand the definition of ideology.
Simply claiming to be something, doesn't make it so. The reference above to the Democratic People's Republic of North-Korea is a good example, as are right wing extremists claiming to be born again Christians, yet follow none of the basic tenants of that religion. Socialism for Hitler was nothing more than a vehicle, not an ideology. The majority of scholars agree that his leanings were definitely right wing, although he often attacked both parties when they strayed from his personal ideology.
Any civilization today has aspects of socialism. it is nearly impossible to have a structured society without some form of body politic which actively promotes social services that the public recognizes are necessary for basic services. The very nature of civilization requires aspects of socialism to thrive.
It is simply the degree to which they think the government should control things that defines 'socialism'.