Although the practice of rooting this phone probably wasn't worth the effort for one phone, the fact that it was documented will help others with the same model, so I can see a definite benefit to this. The beauty of information sharing...
All of which has nothing to do with being anti-competitive. This argument is similar to cell provider agreements which they can change at a whim, although that in itself should be illegal, it's not anti-competitive. It is akin to the Chewbacca defense, in that someone speaks of something which they hope to use to distract people form the original topic.
If anything, these TOS agreements allow them to be more competitive at the expense of the consumer. In the end, the TOS of a company is nothing but a nice description of what they will try to provide, and a set of guidelines that they expect their consumers to abide by. Since the company makes the rules, they can change them at a whim, whereas a 'consumer' is expected to adhere to them or face the consequences. Again all irrelevant when it comes to the term 'anti-competitive'.
In what other world do you live that a corporation must be forced to advertise for a competitor? Seems like everyone immediately loves to scream anti-competitive at the first sign of stress between two companies. It's called competition.
Facebook shouldn't be required to advertise for a competitor. They are a privately owned company and in no way would this ever be considered anti-competitive.
That said, Facebook better get it's shit in order if it hopes to compete, or become the next MySpace. Google+ doesn't have much of a community as of yet, just a bunch of accounts without a lot of activity. It lacks anything compelling for now but that could easily change with just the whim's of it's user base, or some new feature that hasn't been thought of. People have a short attention span, and Facebook is already on thin ice.
Even if Facebook really didn't disable this guy's account for running a Google+ ad they have effectively become an ad for Google+ themselves.
Imagine the conspiracy theorists orgasms if they thought that Google was fronted by the U.S. government to basically get the world population hooked on an information service which happened to know just about everything about you online...
Actually I would say Android has the more agressive vocal fanboys. Mention Apple in here and they swarm with claims of Patent Troll, Natzi, Alter of Steve, Homo, Idiot, Turtleneck, fanboi, 'shiny',queerbate, etc. Apple fans tend to defend their products but they don't generally start attacking others choices. They typically say things like "don't like it, then don't buy it". Android fans tend to strike out against others who disagree with such attacks, and often get personal.
Granted this is just a sample from one thread, but I think it's fairly representative of what I see here. I typically find Android fanboy's to be far more juvenile and verbally abusive. This is just searching this thread for the word 'Apple':
ie. Apple customer. Hey what? Someone had to say it, might as well be me.
It should be fairly obvious to anyone who comes to slashdot regularly that people with an apple shaped hole in their heart are not really 'playing with a full set of cards'.
What would be interesting would be to figure out why certain products attract the more shrill fanboys. The worst two are easily Apple and Nintendo; I would guess Apple attracts the most brainwashees because they have a slick marketing operation, and Nintendo does because a lot of people grew up on Nintendo so had it imprinted early.
So these sad dweebs take it personally that someone else doesn't share their warped view of the world. What's very interesting is how Apple have cultivated it (with carefully placed astroturfers) for two decades.
The mark of a fanboy isn't that they like something better, it's that they've literally coalesced into miniature tribes where their preferred product (Apple being the obvious example) becomes the culture and any alternative culture (say, Windows PCs or Linux) are intruders or the enemy.
Why is Apple the "obvious example"? It used to be that people felt that way about Linux fanboys, these days I'd say Windows/MS fanboys are actually the worst, possibly because they tend to have the backing of all the "anti-fanboys" who run Windows and hate Linux/Apple
Why is Apple the "obvious example"?
ROFLMAO!! I got a kick out of that one... from your/. id, I can tell you are not new here so I assume you are just going for sarcasm
My guess would be that it's because despite the fact that Apple products have repeatedly been proven to be inferior to cheaper, easier to use alternatives, Apple fanbois keep on trying to explain why they use their useless, overpriced, locked-down gadgets instead of the cheaper, better, superior alternatives.
>My guess would be that it's because despite the fact that Apple products have repeatedly been proven to be inferior to cheaper, easier to use alternatives, Apple fanbois keep on trying to explain why they use their useless...
Or they could be pointing out why you don't know what you're talking about and you're just not quite up to hearing about why you're wrong.
As and avowed Apple fan, I do sometimes wonder about my odd feelings of love for my iThings and Mac.
-> Mod parent up. I have no points right now.
PLEASE APPLE!! If you would just let me have an iPhone 5 NOW instead of me having to wait ALL the way until fall, I PROMISE to hold it right!! I'll do ANYTHING! Please!?!? I really don't want to cryogenically freeze myself again:(
The 'enhanced' pat downs are not radically different from a regular pat down except that they will use the palms of their hands on non-genital areas. Your 'privates' are still checked with the back of the hand. There is no 'groping' involved.
Onto the pat-down. Ms TSA asked if we were ok having it done in front of everyone, we said sure, unless you’re going to make us take our clothes off. She looked unamused and said no, there would be no stripping. Then she talked through what she was going to do— like the last agent did during our un-enhanced pat-down a month or so ago. Except she said something that had passed us by in all the hysteria about pat-downs—she would use the front of her hands everywhere except sensitive areas. Ie, boobies and nether regions would only get the back of her hand. No different from the old pat-down.
The hysteria about this is amazing given the supposedly more logical leaning crowd that visits/. I don't care if these searches are not 100%, and every/.'er should know that NO security is perfect, but I feel better that it's done rather than no security at all. Exempting children from this would just make children the ideal transport for contraband.
So now a TSA pat down is equivalent to being molested? I'm sure people who've actually been molested might take issue with that. I've been 'patted down'. It was hardly traumatizing. If someone has an issue with it, they should take another means of transport. They aren't forced to fly.
Are you implying that these people go to the airport NOT expecting to be scanned or searched? This is hardly the same as walking up to a stranger on the street and they randomly grope you. They go to the airport, stand in line watching the hundreds before them go through the same process. You'd have to live under a rock as well as being blind to not know what was going to happen.
Considering they use the back of their hands, it wouldn't call it 'groping'. The media likes to incite the locals with such terminology but the pat downs are pretty benign. In this case she simply didn't want to put her child through the scanner. As far as I can tell from TFA, she never even got to the point where they offered to do a pat down instead.
Probably due to the fact that they are being sued for infringement? Just a guess mind you....
A court can look at facts like these to determine intent, and if it does turn out that Google attempted to get licensing on the very items they are being sued on, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this will damage their case.
Yes but the piece indicating they are not responsible for said data once it gets into 3rd party hands is pretty clear, and doesn't seem to differentiate between personally identifiable, or anonymous data. Why leave it ambiguous?
This is damaging in the fact that Google knew that there were patent issues since they tried to seek licensing for them. If they then later claim that there are no patent issues, it shoots a big hole in their defense.
Their privacy policy doesn't exactly inspire confidence. They basically tell you they will sell your information to pretty much any 3rd party and after the 3rd party gets it, Google washes it's hands of responsibility.
A portion is as follows.... 8. Information Rights
Google may retain and use, subject to the terms of the Google Privacy Policy, all information you provide, including but not limited to Web site demographics and contact information. You agree that Google may transfer and disclose to third parties personally identifiable information about you for the purpose of approving and enabling your use of the Services, including to third parties that reside in jurisdictions with less restrictive data laws than your own. Google may also provide information in response to valid legal process, such as subpoenas, search warrants and court orders, or to establish or exercise its legal rights or defend against legal claims. Google disclaims all responsibility, and will not be liable to you, however, for any disclosure of that information by any such third party. Google may share non-personally-identifiable information about you, including Web site URLs, site-specific statistics, and similar information collected by Google, with advertisers, business partners, sponsors, and other third parties. In addition, you grant Google the right to access, index and cache your Web sites, or any portion thereof, including by automated means including Web spiders or crawlers.
The Netflix streaming library sucks and hasn't improved much in the last few years. Estimates show it has gone up by about 3000 titles. Hardly a winning argument. Look at their 'new' selection and the answer is obvious. They suck and certainly haven't 'improved' in the last few years. I've seen two price increases in the short time I've been with them, and I've yet to see a dramatic improvement in quantity or quality of titles.
I'm tempted to just cancel it all and go for an HD streaming solution with better front tier titles from another vendor. I'm just not seeing the worth of all of these price increases.
Yes but considering that the purpose of a heat sync is to dissipate heat rather than blow air, the point it mute. If the blades get coated, then heat dissipation is still reduced. I'm not saying it's not a better idea than current implementations, but they should at least be a bit realistic in their claims.
Anyone with an old oscillating fan can tell you that just because it moves doesn't make it 'immune' to dust. It may resist heavier buildup but it will end up just as coated eventually.
No, in short, the courts tend to take the view that the encryption key itself is not incriminating evidence in and of itself. It is the equivalent of opening your locked front door when the police show up with a warrant. The contents that are encrypted are the evidence, which the authorities would already have in their possession. That is where it gets ugly. Sometimes the key 'phrase' itself can end up linking you to the encrypted documents in which case you may have limited protection under the 5th, but in recent years the protections offered by the 5th amendment are fairly limited and the courts take a very narrow view of self incrimination. If the key itself isn't the evidence in question, then the key isn't self incriminating.
TFA answers that very scenario. In short, yes. If you have a key to a safe that contains evidence, you can be forced to provide the key.
From TFA:
Much of the discussion has been about what analogy comes closest. Prosecutors tend to view PGP passphrases as akin to someone possessing a key to a safe filled with incriminating documents. That person can, in general, be legally compelled to hand over the key. Other examples include the U.S. Supreme Court saying that defendants can be forced to provide fingerprints, blood samples, or voice recordings.
On the other hand are civil libertarians citing other Supreme Court cases that conclude Americans can't be forced to give "compelled testimonial communications" and extending the legal shield of the Fifth Amendment to encryption passphrases. Courts already have ruled that that such protection extends to the contents of a defendant's mind, so why shouldn't a passphrase be shielded as well?
This is an odd turn of events when it enters the digital realm. One might say that this mirrors a persons actions creating evidence while committing the crime. They can't force a person to confess a crime, and are required to gather what evidence they can via other means. If this person provides the key, they are not actively incriminating themselves as the investigators will handle that but they would be providing the means (essentially confessing should this person turn out to be guilty). Being compelled to testify with evidence that brings an indictment would be covered by the 5th amendment.
It seems like a VERY fine line between 'providing a safe key', and 'confessing'. I actually can't decide which seems more appropriate. Of the two, I think the key to the safe is actually a closer fit. This person wouldn't be confessing directly to any crime, but they would be handing over a key to a safe that may contain such evidence.
I disagree. People can be social without sharing every bit of data they hold. When you speak with your closest friends, do you tell them every secret you hold? Of course not. You always hold something back even though it's stored in your head. The same social rules apply to a social network. You may want some data public and accessible to anyone, while keeping a more private set of data for your closest friends, and many levels in between those two. The current choices with Facebook assumes all data you put out is fair game (as shown time and time again by their willingness to 'opt you in' to sharing your data and then requiring you to go in and lock it down). Unfortunately, to share any data, you must put it online if you wish to share it in a social network. It then becomes a matter of how much control you will retain over that data, and how fine the controls are in regards to who you share it with. Unfortunately, you will always be forced to share it with Google since they are hosting the site. That alone gives me pause given how much data Google already has. With Facebook, I can disassociate them from my web searches, my personal email, etc. That line becomes much more blurry when the social site, my search engine, my cell OS, my personal contacts, my personal email, and my news feeds all come from the same site. The amount of data that Google holds about me has reached a point where I'm actually very wary about Google. Their primary business is data mining and selling such for profit.
I'm just not all that sure I want to line up for this.
They are already doing so, and that includes Apple. Even so, they can't simply roll over for any patent troll in the hopes that patent reform actually happens.
Instead of wasting silly amounts of money on licences, legal fees and patent portfolios wouldn't it be more cost effective to lobby the law makers to change patent law to mean software couldn't be patented?
Wouldn't that be the fiscal duty of CEOs to do so?
Coalition for Patent Fairness members include Adobe, Apple, Cisco, Dell, Google, Intel, Intuit, Micron, Oracle, RIM, SAP, and Symantec.
Slashdot Mirror
Although the practice of rooting this phone probably wasn't worth the effort for one phone, the fact that it was documented will help others with the same model, so I can see a definite benefit to this. The beauty of information sharing...
I have to admit I hope it takes off. It seems like there is no competition in the social network space. It's about damn time ;)
All of which has nothing to do with being anti-competitive. This argument is similar to cell provider agreements which they can change at a whim, although that in itself should be illegal, it's not anti-competitive. It is akin to the Chewbacca defense, in that someone speaks of something which they hope to use to distract people form the original topic.
If anything, these TOS agreements allow them to be more competitive at the expense of the consumer. In the end, the TOS of a company is nothing but a nice description of what they will try to provide, and a set of guidelines that they expect their consumers to abide by. Since the company makes the rules, they can change them at a whim, whereas a 'consumer' is expected to adhere to them or face the consequences. Again all irrelevant when it comes to the term 'anti-competitive'.
In what other world do you live that a corporation must be forced to advertise for a competitor? Seems like everyone immediately loves to scream anti-competitive at the first sign of stress between two companies. It's called competition.
Facebook shouldn't be required to advertise for a competitor. They are a privately owned company and in no way would this ever be considered anti-competitive.
That said, Facebook better get it's shit in order if it hopes to compete, or become the next MySpace. Google+ doesn't have much of a community as of yet, just a bunch of accounts without a lot of activity. It lacks anything compelling for now but that could easily change with just the whim's of it's user base, or some new feature that hasn't been thought of. People have a short attention span, and Facebook is already on thin ice.
Imagine the conspiracy theorists orgasms if they thought that Google was fronted by the U.S. government to basically get the world population hooked on an information service which happened to know just about everything about you online...
Damn..missed the last comment outside of the blockquote. Ah well...
Actually I would say Android has the more agressive vocal fanboys. Mention Apple in here and they swarm with claims of Patent Troll, Natzi, Alter of Steve, Homo, Idiot, Turtleneck, fanboi, 'shiny',queerbate, etc. Apple fans tend to defend their products but they don't generally start attacking others choices. They typically say things like "don't like it, then don't buy it". Android fans tend to strike out against others who disagree with such attacks, and often get personal.
Granted this is just a sample from one thread, but I think it's fairly representative of what I see here. I typically find Android fanboy's to be far more juvenile and verbally abusive. This is just searching this thread for the word 'Apple':
PLEASE APPLE!! If you would just let me have an iPhone 5 NOW instead of me having to wait ALL the way until fall, I PROMISE to hold it right!! I'll do ANYTHING! Please!?!? I really don't want to cryogenically freeze myself again :(
I would imagine that most consumers who bought '4G' phones also think they have true 4G. I wonder what percentage believe that?
The 'enhanced' pat downs are not radically different from a regular pat down except that they will use the palms of their hands on non-genital areas. Your 'privates' are still checked with the back of the hand. There is no 'groping' involved.
http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/11/24/8401/7997/travel/What+It's+Like+Having+the+TSA's+Enhanced+Pat-down%3A+A+Firsthand+Account
The hysteria about this is amazing given the supposedly more logical leaning crowd that visits /. I don't care if these searches are not 100%, and every /.'er should know that NO security is perfect, but I feel better that it's done rather than no security at all. Exempting children from this would just make children the ideal transport for contraband.
So now a TSA pat down is equivalent to being molested? I'm sure people who've actually been molested might take issue with that. I've been 'patted down'. It was hardly traumatizing. If someone has an issue with it, they should take another means of transport. They aren't forced to fly.
Are you implying that these people go to the airport NOT expecting to be scanned or searched? This is hardly the same as walking up to a stranger on the street and they randomly grope you. They go to the airport, stand in line watching the hundreds before them go through the same process. You'd have to live under a rock as well as being blind to not know what was going to happen.
Considering they use the back of their hands, it wouldn't call it 'groping'. The media likes to incite the locals with such terminology but the pat downs are pretty benign. In this case she simply didn't want to put her child through the scanner. As far as I can tell from TFA, she never even got to the point where they offered to do a pat down instead.
Well I for one welcome our new Apoidea Overlords.
Long live the queen...
Probably due to the fact that they are being sued for infringement? Just a guess mind you....
A court can look at facts like these to determine intent, and if it does turn out that Google attempted to get licensing on the very items they are being sued on, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this will damage their case.
Vudu comes to mind, as well as CinimaNow, both of which may turn out to be cheaper for 'new' movies, rather than waiting for Netflix to add them.
Yes but the piece indicating they are not responsible for said data once it gets into 3rd party hands is pretty clear, and doesn't seem to differentiate between personally identifiable, or anonymous data. Why leave it ambiguous?
As I said, it doesn't inspire confidence.
This is damaging in the fact that Google knew that there were patent issues since they tried to seek licensing for them. If they then later claim that there are no patent issues, it shoots a big hole in their defense.
Their privacy policy doesn't exactly inspire confidence. They basically tell you they will sell your information to pretty much any 3rd party and after the 3rd party gets it, Google washes it's hands of responsibility.
The Netflix streaming library sucks and hasn't improved much in the last few years. Estimates show it has gone up by about 3000 titles. Hardly a winning argument. Look at their 'new' selection and the answer is obvious. They suck and certainly haven't 'improved' in the last few years. I've seen two price increases in the short time I've been with them, and I've yet to see a dramatic improvement in quantity or quality of titles.
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2010/10/is-netflixs-inventory-of-streaming-content-growing-fast-enough.html
I'm tempted to just cancel it all and go for an HD streaming solution with better front tier titles from another vendor. I'm just not seeing the worth of all of these price increases.
Yes but considering that the purpose of a heat sync is to dissipate heat rather than blow air, the point it mute. If the blades get coated, then heat dissipation is still reduced. I'm not saying it's not a better idea than current implementations, but they should at least be a bit realistic in their claims.
Anyone with an old oscillating fan can tell you that just because it moves doesn't make it 'immune' to dust. It may resist heavier buildup but it will end up just as coated eventually.
No, in short, the courts tend to take the view that the encryption key itself is not incriminating evidence in and of itself. It is the equivalent of opening your locked front door when the police show up with a warrant. The contents that are encrypted are the evidence, which the authorities would already have in their possession. That is where it gets ugly. Sometimes the key 'phrase' itself can end up linking you to the encrypted documents in which case you may have limited protection under the 5th, but in recent years the protections offered by the 5th amendment are fairly limited and the courts take a very narrow view of self incrimination. If the key itself isn't the evidence in question, then the key isn't self incriminating.
TFA answers that very scenario. In short, yes. If you have a key to a safe that contains evidence, you can be forced to provide the key.
From TFA:
This is an odd turn of events when it enters the digital realm. One might say that this mirrors a persons actions creating evidence while committing the crime. They can't force a person to confess a crime, and are required to gather what evidence they can via other means. If this person provides the key, they are not actively incriminating themselves as the investigators will handle that but they would be providing the means (essentially confessing should this person turn out to be guilty). Being compelled to testify with evidence that brings an indictment would be covered by the 5th amendment.
It seems like a VERY fine line between 'providing a safe key', and 'confessing'. I actually can't decide which seems more appropriate. Of the two, I think the key to the safe is actually a closer fit. This person wouldn't be confessing directly to any crime, but they would be handing over a key to a safe that may contain such evidence.
I disagree. People can be social without sharing every bit of data they hold. When you speak with your closest friends, do you tell them every secret you hold? Of course not. You always hold something back even though it's stored in your head. The same social rules apply to a social network. You may want some data public and accessible to anyone, while keeping a more private set of data for your closest friends, and many levels in between those two. The current choices with Facebook assumes all data you put out is fair game (as shown time and time again by their willingness to 'opt you in' to sharing your data and then requiring you to go in and lock it down). Unfortunately, to share any data, you must put it online if you wish to share it in a social network. It then becomes a matter of how much control you will retain over that data, and how fine the controls are in regards to who you share it with. Unfortunately, you will always be forced to share it with Google since they are hosting the site. That alone gives me pause given how much data Google already has. With Facebook, I can disassociate them from my web searches, my personal email, etc. That line becomes much more blurry when the social site, my search engine, my cell OS, my personal contacts, my personal email, and my news feeds all come from the same site. The amount of data that Google holds about me has reached a point where I'm actually very wary about Google. Their primary business is data mining and selling such for profit.
I'm just not all that sure I want to line up for this.
They are already doing so, and that includes Apple. Even so, they can't simply roll over for any patent troll in the hopes that patent reform actually happens.
http://www.patentfairness.org/media/press/
Coalition for Patent Fairness members include Adobe, Apple, Cisco, Dell, Google, Intel, Intuit, Micron, Oracle, RIM, SAP, and Symantec.