Oh I totally agree. That's why I was hinting at the fact that schools should be allowed to operate more like non public entities. My competance is definitely relevant to my client, but they expect my employer to get rid of anyone who does not produce quality work. The same principle could easily be applied to schools. If the schools could be trusted to get rid of incompetant teachers, this point would be irrelevant, but this is not the case. There are plenty of teachers that do sub-par jobs and get to keep being paid.
Yea, I was originally thinking of backing the newspaper, but I just tried to apply this to myself. I get evaluated at work, but the evaluations stay INSIDE my company. My clients do not get to see these evaluations. Perhaps the bigger issue is that the Unions make it impossible for the Schools to do anything about teachers that have poor evaluations. If the School was more capable of firing incapable teachers then it wouldn't matter if the public knew or not.
I understand all that, but it does not appear to me that Apple is planning to take these photos without the owners consent. I don't believe that the thief in possession of a stolen device has any rights over what can and cannot be done with that device. If so then it'd be theirs.
In the US, this sort of thing has never been a problem. Tracking down stolen property is already done with GPS, even on the iPhone.
There are already several companies that do this. I use Orbicule Undercover on my MacBook Pro.
Also, how about security cameras on stores? You steal something and they take your picture.
If the owner of the device decided they did not wish the camera to be activated that's one thing. If the owner tells Apple, "Hey, can you take a picture of whoever is using my phone?" then that's something totally different. I am allowed to go wherever I want and take pictures of people.
I'm pretty sure your social security number, name, phone number, account number, credit card number, etc.. are all far better "proof" of your identity.
Also, the terms listed by TFA are that these methods are to be taken to prevent unauthorized users from using the devices. It doesn't say in there to prevent users that have voided their warranties from making claims. Also, if they intend to try and see if a device has voided it's warranty and not allow them to make any claims on that voided warranty, that's totally alright with me. I know what I'm doing when I chose to void my warranty.
Also, I am very confident that there would be ways that developers would circumvent this type of "protective service".
Claim 4 mentions jailbreaking but looks like they refer to it as a method of potential vulernability
Claim 10 refers to transfering sensitive user information to a remote site and then clearing the device of said information
Most glaring is claim 13 which refers to comparing heartbeats of the current using a heartbeat sensor and comparing it with a library of AUTHORIZED USERS
I like your style. Take it even further though. Start building a system to automate your entire workflow to mimic you on a day to day basis so it will carry on as if it were you entirely postmortem. Slowly and steadily you will have given the computer enough information about you that nobody will know the difference between you and your application. Then the application will start to assume your online identity. Keep that computer in check!
But really... I'm going to try this. It's just shame I won't be able to see how it freaks people out.
Well we obviously have different preferences. I would not want any kind of censoring or traffic shaping at all. What I would not mind is having soft caps on bandwidth. Say you get 10GB a month at 100MBps and then after that ALL traffic gets throttled down. I think that this is fair because it really hits the issues head on. The reasons the ISPs claim to want to throttle is because certain services use a lot of bandwidth. So why not just throttle those that are actually using the excessive bandwidth?
I don't know that Net Neutrality is the best solution, but the control the ISPs have over the consumers who NEED internet for their daily jobs etcetera, is too much.
First, Net Neutrality would do no such thing to entrench a monopoly. And it's a fact that these ISPs often do have either a monopoly or duopoly in the areas.
As for impact on the poor... Comcast choosing to provide you 200 sites or all sites is really of no extra expense for them. It would not lower costs at all. The only think that packages would do is that they would allow the ISP to charge MORE for more sites. Cable TV is a bit different. The CableCo has to pay each channel for the right to broadcast. That's why they try to bundle channels you don't care about and charge you for them.
Sites like Google don't charge your ISP for allowing viewers visit the page. There is no reason that a smaller amount of websites would be cheaper for the ISP. It doesn't make sense.
Believe it or not, but the ISPs don't care about you or me (SHOCKER) they care about making money! If they already have people accepting that the standard for broadband is $60/month that'll be the cheapest it is going to be (because as I said earlier, giving you less sites does NOT save them any more money). By cutting off your options they'll just be pushing you towards more expensive and more expansive packages. It's all to make money.
If you don't believe me then just look at the way Cable TV has already moved. I don't want all 200 channels. I just want 10. Do they offer me a cheaper plan that has just 10 channels? Nope. they just offer more and more and then raise the prices. Then they say, "Yes it's more expensive than it used to be... BUT LOOK AT ALL THE CHANNELS YOU GET!!!". Is that how you want your internet?
What would you do if you lived in an area where Comcast is the only ISP? What would you do then if Comcast decided that the only sites you could go to were 200 sites on their "basic internet" package?.
I'm a very conservative person and very much a small government kind of guy, but I'm also an avid lover of the internet.
The biggest point to make is that consumers in the US do not often have a lot of choices for internet. In my location I have the choice of FiOS or some cellular company with an expensive and slow plan. My parents are gearing up for a move and he's looking for internet now. He has one choice for broadband. Time Warner Cable. That is until At&t U-Verse gets to his area.
The thing is, building up a vast network of cables to provide usable access to the internet from scratch to compete with the big companies is not as easily done as starting a new sandwich store to compete with McDonalds. Choice is always good and I am a believer in Capitalism but with big expensive things like cable and internet which, as another/.r mentioned, were heavily helped out by the Government, it's nearly impossible to get good competition. Look at other large industries. The same things happen. Price fixing and all kinds of agreements along with anti-competitive behavior all hurt the consumers but they are wide spread.
I don't see any urgency for vast legislation to cover all aspects of business in the US, but Net Neutrality needs to happen. I'm not upset that the FCC got shut down either. I'd rather have it in the hands of Congress (elected officials at least) than in the hands of some appointed bureaucrats.
Personally... I'm more concerned about bringing those that were responsible for terrorism around the world and kidnapping individuals and beheading them on camera to justice.
Anyone who we've taken as a prisoner should wish to be so lucky. We've seen how the terrorists treat their prisoners. Since we're fighting guerrilla forces we need to get information from them and unfortunately can't just kill all opposition on sight. Too bad. Our opposition will not change their views and their desire to kill innocent Americans like on 9/11 will not wane. The only way to "End" this "war on terror" is to kill them all because that's what they want to do to us.
I drew a pattern that used every node. It was actually quite complicated and if one looked at my smudges it may be hard to figure out exactly the pattern because there is a lot of crossing. It's easy to tell which swipe came first when there are only two crosses, but when you have 3 going over the same point, all you know for sure is the last one.
That would be great!
There is nothing that facebook offers me except the ability to share photos with friends and the get updated info about my friends.
There already are a lot of alternatives out there actually. Google now has profiles even. I am starting to move my photos over to flickr now anyway to support Geo Tagging and full resolution copies. Also, check out FaceDown. It's a java app that downloads all your photos. Then you could re-upload them to whatever service you want. Except that a good computer user should have the originals backed up so they aren't stuck with the crappy compressed versions facebook was using.
That's why they all have lobbyists pushing for Net Neutrality.
There are plenty of conservatives that are in favor of Net Neutrality but feel that appointed FCC officials should not be allowed to control the terms and that it'd be better governed by our elected officials in congress... Sounds good, but how long will that take?
I'm torn. I know what I want... but I don't know the best way to get there.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh I totally agree. That's why I was hinting at the fact that schools should be allowed to operate more like non public entities. My competance is definitely relevant to my client, but they expect my employer to get rid of anyone who does not produce quality work. The same principle could easily be applied to schools. If the schools could be trusted to get rid of incompetant teachers, this point would be irrelevant, but this is not the case. There are plenty of teachers that do sub-par jobs and get to keep being paid.
It's unfair.
Yea, I was originally thinking of backing the newspaper, but I just tried to apply this to myself. I get evaluated at work, but the evaluations stay INSIDE my company. My clients do not get to see these evaluations. Perhaps the bigger issue is that the Unions make it impossible for the Schools to do anything about teachers that have poor evaluations. If the School was more capable of firing incapable teachers then it wouldn't matter if the public knew or not.
I understand all that, but it does not appear to me that Apple is planning to take these photos without the owners consent. I don't believe that the thief in possession of a stolen device has any rights over what can and cannot be done with that device. If so then it'd be theirs.
In the US, this sort of thing has never been a problem. Tracking down stolen property is already done with GPS, even on the iPhone.
Google is also about to release ChromeOS which is Linux based for netbooks and laptops.
There are already several companies that do this. I use Orbicule Undercover on my MacBook Pro.
Also, how about security cameras on stores? You steal something and they take your picture.
If the owner of the device decided they did not wish the camera to be activated that's one thing. If the owner tells Apple, "Hey, can you take a picture of whoever is using my phone?" then that's something totally different. I am allowed to go wherever I want and take pictures of people.
In other words... I don't think it'd be an issue.
WTF was this modded Troll?
I'm pretty sure your social security number, name, phone number, account number, credit card number, etc.. are all far better "proof" of your identity.
Also, the terms listed by TFA are that these methods are to be taken to prevent unauthorized users from using the devices. It doesn't say in there to prevent users that have voided their warranties from making claims. Also, if they intend to try and see if a device has voided it's warranty and not allow them to make any claims on that voided warranty, that's totally alright with me. I know what I'm doing when I chose to void my warranty.
Also, I am very confident that there would be ways that developers would circumvent this type of "protective service".
This whole post is straight FUD.
Reading this it becomes instantly apparent that "unauthorized use" is referring to users of stolen devices.
Jailbreaking is already legal. What use would it be to take a photo of a jailbroken user?
Theft is not legal. It would be VERY useful to have a photo of the user of a stolen device.
I noticed this the other day, but I was kind of hoping it only brought that up because I had a cookie and had logged in before... Guess not.
Brilliant!
I like your style. Take it even further though. Start building a system to automate your entire workflow to mimic you on a day to day basis so it will carry on as if it were you entirely postmortem. Slowly and steadily you will have given the computer enough information about you that nobody will know the difference between you and your application. Then the application will start to assume your online identity. Keep that computer in check!
But really... I'm going to try this. It's just shame I won't be able to see how it freaks people out.
Lucky. I can't. The only option for me is Verizon FiOS.
Well we obviously have different preferences. I would not want any kind of censoring or traffic shaping at all. What I would not mind is having soft caps on bandwidth. Say you get 10GB a month at 100MBps and then after that ALL traffic gets throttled down. I think that this is fair because it really hits the issues head on. The reasons the ISPs claim to want to throttle is because certain services use a lot of bandwidth. So why not just throttle those that are actually using the excessive bandwidth?
I don't know that Net Neutrality is the best solution, but the control the ISPs have over the consumers who NEED internet for their daily jobs etcetera, is too much.
First, Net Neutrality would do no such thing to entrench a monopoly. And it's a fact that these ISPs often do have either a monopoly or duopoly in the areas.
As for impact on the poor... Comcast choosing to provide you 200 sites or all sites is really of no extra expense for them. It would not lower costs at all. The only think that packages would do is that they would allow the ISP to charge MORE for more sites. Cable TV is a bit different. The CableCo has to pay each channel for the right to broadcast. That's why they try to bundle channels you don't care about and charge you for them.
Sites like Google don't charge your ISP for allowing viewers visit the page. There is no reason that a smaller amount of websites would be cheaper for the ISP. It doesn't make sense.
Believe it or not, but the ISPs don't care about you or me (SHOCKER) they care about making money! If they already have people accepting that the standard for broadband is $60/month that'll be the cheapest it is going to be (because as I said earlier, giving you less sites does NOT save them any more money). By cutting off your options they'll just be pushing you towards more expensive and more expansive packages. It's all to make money.
If you don't believe me then just look at the way Cable TV has already moved. I don't want all 200 channels. I just want 10. Do they offer me a cheaper plan that has just 10 channels? Nope. they just offer more and more and then raise the prices. Then they say, "Yes it's more expensive than it used to be... BUT LOOK AT ALL THE CHANNELS YOU GET!!!". Is that how you want your internet?
What would you do if you lived in an area where Comcast is the only ISP? What would you do then if Comcast decided that the only sites you could go to were 200 sites on their "basic internet" package?.
Move?
I'm a very conservative person and very much a small government kind of guy, but I'm also an avid lover of the internet.
/.r mentioned, were heavily helped out by the Government, it's nearly impossible to get good competition. Look at other large industries. The same things happen. Price fixing and all kinds of agreements along with anti-competitive behavior all hurt the consumers but they are wide spread.
The biggest point to make is that consumers in the US do not often have a lot of choices for internet. In my location I have the choice of FiOS or some cellular company with an expensive and slow plan. My parents are gearing up for a move and he's looking for internet now. He has one choice for broadband. Time Warner Cable. That is until At&t U-Verse gets to his area.
The thing is, building up a vast network of cables to provide usable access to the internet from scratch to compete with the big companies is not as easily done as starting a new sandwich store to compete with McDonalds. Choice is always good and I am a believer in Capitalism but with big expensive things like cable and internet which, as another
I don't see any urgency for vast legislation to cover all aspects of business in the US, but Net Neutrality needs to happen. I'm not upset that the FCC got shut down either. I'd rather have it in the hands of Congress (elected officials at least) than in the hands of some appointed bureaucrats.
Personally... I'm more concerned about bringing those that were responsible for terrorism around the world and kidnapping individuals and beheading them on camera to justice. Anyone who we've taken as a prisoner should wish to be so lucky. We've seen how the terrorists treat their prisoners. Since we're fighting guerrilla forces we need to get information from them and unfortunately can't just kill all opposition on sight. Too bad. Our opposition will not change their views and their desire to kill innocent Americans like on 9/11 will not wane. The only way to "End" this "war on terror" is to kill them all because that's what they want to do to us.
I drew a pattern that used every node. It was actually quite complicated and if one looked at my smudges it may be hard to figure out exactly the pattern because there is a lot of crossing. It's easy to tell which swipe came first when there are only two crosses, but when you have 3 going over the same point, all you know for sure is the last one.
False
It, the movie, is not 3D, but you, the viewer, are seeing Three Dimensions. If your brain is perceiving Three Dimensions, does it really matter?
But... Think about simultaneity. How do you ensure that the momentum and position were recorded at the same time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
That would be great! There is nothing that facebook offers me except the ability to share photos with friends and the get updated info about my friends. There already are a lot of alternatives out there actually. Google now has profiles even. I am starting to move my photos over to flickr now anyway to support Geo Tagging and full resolution copies. Also, check out FaceDown. It's a java app that downloads all your photos. Then you could re-upload them to whatever service you want. Except that a good computer user should have the originals backed up so they aren't stuck with the crappy compressed versions facebook was using.
That's why they all have lobbyists pushing for Net Neutrality. There are plenty of conservatives that are in favor of Net Neutrality but feel that appointed FCC officials should not be allowed to control the terms and that it'd be better governed by our elected officials in congress... Sounds good, but how long will that take? I'm torn. I know what I want... but I don't know the best way to get there.
Because IBM doesn't manufacture the drives and they probably didn't plug each one in to test it...
A joke right? How the heck did this get modded insightful? You can't install Linux on the iPad.