Not all of it... The moon's composition is actually nearly 60% oxygen, and it entirely possible to extract on location once you have the appropriate mining facilities available. The two vital needs. air and water, are available on the moon too, if one is willing to do work to get at them. Weighing this difficulty in comparison to the sheer magnitude of pursuing colonization over a hundred times further away on a world that is perhaps at best only marginally more hospitable, the moon makes far more sense... at least as a stepping stone on the way to more distant worlds, than bypassing it for headline-grabbing ideal of going to Mars instead. The *only* thing keeping us from being able to go the moon right now is ultimately the lack of significant incentive to do so. There are much more substantial barriers, both economical and technological, that are keeping us from going to Mars right now.
Just because the fire started at the battery does not mean that the person did not do something that caused it to happen. An independent party may be able to determine this, but they also may not. More importantly, even knowing that it started at the battery would not generally be helpful to other parties in determining if the underlying cause was a one-off occurrence on the so-called "safe" note 7's, or is symptomatic of a deeper issue that Samsung was not yet aware of. Samsung is the only company that can make this determination, and in the interests of the safety of all owners, it is imperative that they analyze the phone.
What, I may ask, could you expect an independent party to do? with it? Only Samsung is truly qualified to determine if the fault was in the design of their entire product line as it was with the vulnerable Note 7's, or if this was a one-off occurrence... or if the person sabotaged his own device and was simply claiming it had exploded.
I'm not saying third parties shouldn't be involved here... someone needs to keep Samsung honest in all of this. Ultimately, however, it is Samsung that is going to have to examine the phone because anything that anyone else does will not be founded on the necessary expert knowledge that only Samsung will have about their product to make a deterministic evaluation.
Oh sure, we've been there before... but seriously, if the goal is to build a self-sustaining permanent habitat as soon as possible, then why not build one on the moon first?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't go to Mars eventually, but I think talking about it before we've even started to seriously talk about colonizing the lunar surface, let alone doing it, is really putting the cart before the horse.
At the very least, the moon is less than a hundredth as far. Why do the people who propose this always refuse to even try to walk before they want to run?
If you don't have confidence that the court will deliver a fair verdict (and I'm not saying that many don't), then you have correspondingly less incentive to want to use the court system to resolve a dispute in the first place, unless you are hoping you can manipulate the court into delivering an unfair one or are otherwise using the court system as a casino for justice... both of which are exactly the kind of frivolous lawsuit that loser-pays is supposed to prevent.
That's an entirely fine position to take, but people who believe that the court system isn't fair aren't likely to want to use it in the first place to obtain what they genuinely believe is a fair verdict. They would be literally gambling that the court *might* side with them based only on their feelings about the matter, rather than what is objectively lawful, and such an approach, even if their claim otherwise may have had merit, is just another example of a frivolous lawsuit that loser pays is supposed to prevent.
If one were to believe that their peers can be so swayed then they have no confidence in the court to deliver a just verdict in the first place. After that, there is no rational basis remaining for them to even *want* to use the court system to resolve a dispute unless that person were actually wanting to manipulate the court into delivering an unjust verdict, or unless one figured that the court system was intended to be used as some sort of casino for justice.
The system that exists will inevitably cause some dodgy claims to be put forward.
It's not that it *causes* them to be put forward, its that it permits them... without regard for anything that one might expect or hope for with regards to a fair verdict.
Loser pays only allows for the possibility for legitimate claims to be dropped when one has very little confidence in the court system to deliver a fair verdict, and in such circumstances one ought to have equally little incentive to be using the court system in the first place to resolve a dispute. I'm not saying that people can't be unconfident in the court system to be fair... only that such people are only at best using the court system like a casino, and gambling on justice. That's not what the court system is for, and such usage *should* be discouraged, because such usage is, itself, a kind of frivolous lawsuit based on personal beliefs of what is right, rather that on what is objectively lawful.
Exactly. Loser pays all system basically means you DO NOT sue a big company regardless of how solid you think your claim is.
Assuming that they believe that the intrinsic merits of their own case are stronger than those of their opponent... the only reason that would be true is if one did not believe that the court system was capable of seeing this fact simply because of the amount of money that their opponent might be spend on lawyers. This can happen, of course, but if one does not have any confidence in the court to render a fair and just verdict, then why would one try and use the court system at all unless they were actually hoping to use the court system to render what they believe may be an unjust one?
People that believe they have a legitimate claim, but do not believe that the court system is capable of rendering a just verdict in their favour simply because they don't have as much money as their opponent might have to spend on lawyers don't use the court system to resolve their disputes in the first place. I'm not saying that believing your opponent has more money than you won't stop some entirely legitimate claims, but that happens already if everyone pays their own costs anyways, and I cannot say for sure, but this demographic may not even be significantly impacted by implementing a loser-pays policy. However, the notion that a loser-pays policy would stop many more non-frivolous lawsuits that would otherwise happen simply because of how much money their opponent is likely to spend on lawyers than frivolous lawsuits is almost certainly a specious one.
I would love to be rid of flash forever, but there remains a small but distinct subset of websites for which I do not have any legal alternative for the content they provide that insist upon sticking with it... until hell freezes over as far as I can tell.
If you insist on bringing a camera around people who don't think that's reasonable, it's not going to end well.
Only because people believe themselves to be more important to other people than they actually are... the hypothetical wetware situation illustrates that perfectly, where it is clear that even it were possible to upload everything that person sees with their own eyes into a computer, people would not immediately take offense to other people being around them... the problem isn't really recording, the problem is when other people are paying attention to matters that are none of their business. There is no reason to presume that a person who is simply recording their surroundings is paying attention to anyone in particular that might get offended by being recorded unless the person has done something else to indicate that they are so interested.
So the only reason to get upset about happening to be in a recording that someone else is making is believing yourself to be more important to that person than you probably are.
Which is, of course, not a remotely rational reason for doing something.
Of course, people aren't reknown for always being particularly rational, but that's no excuse to not even strive to behave like the rational creatures we are capable of being. We are, presumably, more evolved intellectually than that, and people who are incapable of showing self-control in such conditions are only showing themselves to be not that far removed from creatures that we would ordinarily put in cages.... in zoos. What, may I ask, is the point of so-called human rights if a person is incapable of acting like, you know, a human?
I'd think it's better to not be resorting to violence to resolve a violation of social protocol.
A person with smelly armpits might make you uncomfortable to be around too... would you beat him up if he didn't just go away when you asked him to?
Somebody recording their surroundings of which you just happen to be a part does not in any way suggest that the person was ever interested in anything you were doing or saying, and it is undesired *eavesdropping* that is the violation of social protocol, not indifferent observation. The fact that it is being recorded is entirely superfluous because again, people record with their memories too. Faulty memory issues are superfluous to making them an exception because lossy digital recordings can be made already. And if we *were* in a society where wetware were a thing and information *could* be transferred from the mind to the computer, there would be just as much reason to be upset with someone who was just simply within eyeshot of you for recording you as there would be if he were carrying a physical recording device. Except we wouldn't get upset about that.. Now why do you suppose that is?
The *only* reason to be upset with someone recording you is the same reason you'd have to be upset with someone who is overtly eavesdropping on a conversation you are having.... they are paying undue attention to matters that do not concern them. You'd tell them to get lost or whatnot...but if they didn't appear to be paying attention to you in the first place, you wouldn't care. Presence of a recording device is only an indication that the person is interested in recording their environment of which you are just a small part, and is not by itself present any reasoned basis to presume that the person is paying attention to any one specific person unless the visibly do something that indicates they are.... just as you would presume about a person who was not carrying any visible recording device.
Beating someone else up just because they offended you is breaking a pretty core social expectation too.
But might does not make right. There are those who believe that it does, but I'd argue that is symptomatic only of a failure in those people to use higher reasoning to draw their conclusions, and not founded on any actually morally justified grounds.
It's ironic that you'd claim to be acting in the name of common decency while invoking indecent violent behavior.
Let us invoke a hypothetical situation, however, to briefly consider why recording you in a public place should not be a problem. imagine that wetware is a real thing, and it is possible to transfer memories to a computer with full and vibrant video and audio... Lossy digital recording is possible today, so any imperfections in human memory are immaterial. In such a socieity, if you didn't want yourself to be recorded, would you get just as offended at anyone who was simply looking at you? If not, when in such a situation they could be using their memory as a recording medium, then why would you get offended today at someone who was using a visible device that might be used to record what is going on when that person probably wasn't even that interested in you in the first place until you got into their face and threatened them?
And of course, if you *do* try to beat the crap out of the so-called "glasshole", bear in mind that they would have a legitimate right to respond to such an attack in self-defense, and you could wind up getting yourself seriously injured instead.
If the device was actually recording at the time, the fact that you chose to instigate the confrontation would be irrefutable proof that this so-called glasshole was merely physically defending himself from your attack, and although what he was doing provoked the attack from you, it would be clear from the recording that he did not deliberately do it to antagonize you personally... you just happened to be someone who got offended enough by it to try and beat the guy up in response.
And failed. So.... you'd get beaten up *AND* still end up facing possible prison.
Think it's worth the risk? If you want privacy, go somewhere private.... if you go out of your way to do something to make yourself more interesting to somebody who isn't actually interested in you in the first place, then you are the one who is inviting the problems that may ensue, not the person recording their surroundings.
If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree
They do. They beat the crap out of glassholes
This is assault, and illegal. Your so-called "right to privacy" does not extend to the right to beat up anybody who you think may be infringing upon it. If someone is breaking the law to infringe on your privacy, your course of action should be to report the crime, not to beat the person up.
Just because one is a "public" place doesn't mean everyone should have everything they do and say documented for all time
The people who take exception to this should note that they,. like most other people around them, are not likely to be interesting enough for other people to even *want* to document everything they do or say in a public place for all time in the first place.
The brain is a recording device too... the fact that we happen to consider it fallible is immaterial... you can record something using a device with lossy compression too.
Reasonably, the objection to being recorded in a public place logically reduces to objecting to other people paying attention to them when they don't want to be. Trying to govern it with laws is trying to control what people are even allowed to *THINK*, and that is something I consider infinitely more morally objectionable than somebody eavesdropping on a conversation that was none of their business or even if they were recording it (as long as it was for their own personal use, just as whatever they have remembered in their own head would be).
It doesn't matter if wetware is not coming as soon as I supposedly think... I mention it to point out that if it were even hypothetically a thing, our existing objection to being recorded with devices should mean that it would be equally objectionable to simply have people *observing*... clearly this is absurd, even in an age where mind-machine interfaces are viable, and so by extension, it must be equally absurd to object to the idea of being recorded in the first place when you are in an area where someone might incidentally be observing you. Again, the fact that no such technology exists right now is irrelevant, since we would not object to simple observation even *IF* that observation were being permanently recorded, so there is no real reason to object to permanent recording in the first place.
If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree that the only way that people will be able to infringe on that privacy is to violate laws allowing people to control who and what is on their own personal property.
It's not that I think if you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide, either... everyone has things that they would rather be private, and I believe everyone is entitled to that... but people should deal with the things that they want to be private in environments that *ARE* private... not in places that are public, which is, you know... the very *opposite* of private. Your privacy when you aren't trying to be in a private place is ultimately dependent not on what you might believe or want, but solely on how much other people want to pay attention to you in the first place, and so worrying about it in such circumstances even at best represents what is probably an inflated opinion of oneself, believing oneself to be far more important to other people that they don't know than is realistically likely to be the case.
So when the premise that might otherwise make one care about it is based on a falsehood (that other people are as interested in them as they are), there's no rational basis to be worried about it.
When I want privacy, I go somewhere private. I step outside, however... and it's fair game.
... whether or not somebody else records them in a public place? For fuck's sake, if they are within earshot, they are recording your audio and if they are in eyeshot, they are recording your video... the only difference is that the device that is doing the recording is their brain. When wetware becomes a thing, even that distinction to external devices such as cameras or microphones will be irrelevant. The *only* thing that really protects your privacy when you are in a public place is whether or not people are interested enough in paying attention to you.
Obviously,. you could still prosecute people that distribute content that was recorded without permission of the subject, but I see no point to the outcries against people who might record for their own personal use, and in all honesty, are probably not actually *that* interested in you in the first place to notice you, specifically, among everything else they might be recording and actually *are* interested in.
The only caveat to this I would suggest is that without clear signage to the effect that states that an area is being monitored or recorded, a person doing the monitoring or recording must be physically at the location the recording is occurring... I do not think it should necessarily be externally obvious that they are recording anything, however... any more than it should be required that if a person is simply observing people as they go by should be carrying sign saying that they are watching you.
No, it does not. There is no headphone jack on the iphone 7 that is being covered up. You can see this for yourself by watching any one of the umpteen dozen or so iphone 7 teardown videos that are already out.
Slashdot Mirror
Not all of it... The moon's composition is actually nearly 60% oxygen, and it entirely possible to extract on location once you have the appropriate mining facilities available. The two vital needs. air and water, are available on the moon too, if one is willing to do work to get at them. Weighing this difficulty in comparison to the sheer magnitude of pursuing colonization over a hundred times further away on a world that is perhaps at best only marginally more hospitable, the moon makes far more sense... at least as a stepping stone on the way to more distant worlds, than bypassing it for headline-grabbing ideal of going to Mars instead. The *only* thing keeping us from being able to go the moon right now is ultimately the lack of significant incentive to do so. There are much more substantial barriers, both economical and technological, that are keeping us from going to Mars right now.
Just because the fire started at the battery does not mean that the person did not do something that caused it to happen. An independent party may be able to determine this, but they also may not. More importantly, even knowing that it started at the battery would not generally be helpful to other parties in determining if the underlying cause was a one-off occurrence on the so-called "safe" note 7's, or is symptomatic of a deeper issue that Samsung was not yet aware of. Samsung is the only company that can make this determination, and in the interests of the safety of all owners, it is imperative that they analyze the phone.
What, I may ask, could you expect an independent party to do? with it? Only Samsung is truly qualified to determine if the fault was in the design of their entire product line as it was with the vulnerable Note 7's, or if this was a one-off occurrence... or if the person sabotaged his own device and was simply claiming it had exploded.
I'm not saying third parties shouldn't be involved here... someone needs to keep Samsung honest in all of this. Ultimately, however, it is Samsung that is going to have to examine the phone because anything that anyone else does will not be founded on the necessary expert knowledge that only Samsung will have about their product to make a deterministic evaluation.
Why not the moon?
Oh sure, we've been there before... but seriously, if the goal is to build a self-sustaining permanent habitat as soon as possible, then why not build one on the moon first?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't go to Mars eventually, but I think talking about it before we've even started to seriously talk about colonizing the lunar surface, let alone doing it, is really putting the cart before the horse.
At the very least, the moon is less than a hundredth as far. Why do the people who propose this always refuse to even try to walk before they want to run?
As I said, it's not the job of the court to be used like a casino... even if you perceive that the odds, as you say, are in your favour.
Jules Verne, eat your heart out.
If you don't have confidence that the court will deliver a fair verdict (and I'm not saying that many don't), then you have correspondingly less incentive to want to use the court system to resolve a dispute in the first place, unless you are hoping you can manipulate the court into delivering an unfair one or are otherwise using the court system as a casino for justice... both of which are exactly the kind of frivolous lawsuit that loser-pays is supposed to prevent.
That's an entirely fine position to take, but people who believe that the court system isn't fair aren't likely to want to use it in the first place to obtain what they genuinely believe is a fair verdict. They would be literally gambling that the court *might* side with them based only on their feelings about the matter, rather than what is objectively lawful, and such an approach, even if their claim otherwise may have had merit, is just another example of a frivolous lawsuit that loser pays is supposed to prevent.
If one were to believe that their peers can be so swayed then they have no confidence in the court to deliver a just verdict in the first place. After that, there is no rational basis remaining for them to even *want* to use the court system to resolve a dispute unless that person were actually wanting to manipulate the court into delivering an unjust verdict, or unless one figured that the court system was intended to be used as some sort of casino for justice.
It's not that it *causes* them to be put forward, its that it permits them... without regard for anything that one might expect or hope for with regards to a fair verdict.
Loser pays only allows for the possibility for legitimate claims to be dropped when one has very little confidence in the court system to deliver a fair verdict, and in such circumstances one ought to have equally little incentive to be using the court system in the first place to resolve a dispute. I'm not saying that people can't be unconfident in the court system to be fair... only that such people are only at best using the court system like a casino, and gambling on justice. That's not what the court system is for, and such usage *should* be discouraged, because such usage is, itself, a kind of frivolous lawsuit based on personal beliefs of what is right, rather that on what is objectively lawful.
Assuming that they believe that the intrinsic merits of their own case are stronger than those of their opponent... the only reason that would be true is if one did not believe that the court system was capable of seeing this fact simply because of the amount of money that their opponent might be spend on lawyers. This can happen, of course, but if one does not have any confidence in the court to render a fair and just verdict, then why would one try and use the court system at all unless they were actually hoping to use the court system to render what they believe may be an unjust one?
People that believe they have a legitimate claim, but do not believe that the court system is capable of rendering a just verdict in their favour simply because they don't have as much money as their opponent might have to spend on lawyers don't use the court system to resolve their disputes in the first place. I'm not saying that believing your opponent has more money than you won't stop some entirely legitimate claims, but that happens already if everyone pays their own costs anyways, and I cannot say for sure, but this demographic may not even be significantly impacted by implementing a loser-pays policy. However, the notion that a loser-pays policy would stop many more non-frivolous lawsuits that would otherwise happen simply because of how much money their opponent is likely to spend on lawyers than frivolous lawsuits is almost certainly a specious one.
I would love to be rid of flash forever, but there remains a small but distinct subset of websites for which I do not have any legal alternative for the content they provide that insist upon sticking with it... until hell freezes over as far as I can tell.
Only because people believe themselves to be more important to other people than they actually are... the hypothetical wetware situation illustrates that perfectly, where it is clear that even it were possible to upload everything that person sees with their own eyes into a computer, people would not immediately take offense to other people being around them... the problem isn't really recording, the problem is when other people are paying attention to matters that are none of their business. There is no reason to presume that a person who is simply recording their surroundings is paying attention to anyone in particular that might get offended by being recorded unless the person has done something else to indicate that they are so interested.
So the only reason to get upset about happening to be in a recording that someone else is making is believing yourself to be more important to that person than you probably are.
Which is, of course, not a remotely rational reason for doing something.
Of course, people aren't reknown for always being particularly rational, but that's no excuse to not even strive to behave like the rational creatures we are capable of being. We are, presumably, more evolved intellectually than that, and people who are incapable of showing self-control in such conditions are only showing themselves to be not that far removed from creatures that we would ordinarily put in cages.... in zoos. What, may I ask, is the point of so-called human rights if a person is incapable of acting like, you know, a human?
I'd think it's better to not be resorting to violence to resolve a violation of social protocol.
A person with smelly armpits might make you uncomfortable to be around too... would you beat him up if he didn't just go away when you asked him to?
Somebody recording their surroundings of which you just happen to be a part does not in any way suggest that the person was ever interested in anything you were doing or saying, and it is undesired *eavesdropping* that is the violation of social protocol, not indifferent observation. The fact that it is being recorded is entirely superfluous because again, people record with their memories too. Faulty memory issues are superfluous to making them an exception because lossy digital recordings can be made already. And if we *were* in a society where wetware were a thing and information *could* be transferred from the mind to the computer, there would be just as much reason to be upset with someone who was just simply within eyeshot of you for recording you as there would be if he were carrying a physical recording device. Except we wouldn't get upset about that.. Now why do you suppose that is?
The *only* reason to be upset with someone recording you is the same reason you'd have to be upset with someone who is overtly eavesdropping on a conversation you are having.... they are paying undue attention to matters that do not concern them. You'd tell them to get lost or whatnot...but if they didn't appear to be paying attention to you in the first place, you wouldn't care. Presence of a recording device is only an indication that the person is interested in recording their environment of which you are just a small part, and is not by itself present any reasoned basis to presume that the person is paying attention to any one specific person unless the visibly do something that indicates they are.... just as you would presume about a person who was not carrying any visible recording device.
Beating someone else up just because they offended you is breaking a pretty core social expectation too.
But might does not make right. There are those who believe that it does, but I'd argue that is symptomatic only of a failure in those people to use higher reasoning to draw their conclusions, and not founded on any actually morally justified grounds.
Let us invoke a hypothetical situation, however, to briefly consider why recording you in a public place should not be a problem. imagine that wetware is a real thing, and it is possible to transfer memories to a computer with full and vibrant video and audio... Lossy digital recording is possible today, so any imperfections in human memory are immaterial. In such a socieity, if you didn't want yourself to be recorded, would you get just as offended at anyone who was simply looking at you? If not, when in such a situation they could be using their memory as a recording medium, then why would you get offended today at someone who was using a visible device that might be used to record what is going on when that person probably wasn't even that interested in you in the first place until you got into their face and threatened them?
And of course, if you *do* try to beat the crap out of the so-called "glasshole", bear in mind that they would have a legitimate right to respond to such an attack in self-defense, and you could wind up getting yourself seriously injured instead.
If the device was actually recording at the time, the fact that you chose to instigate the confrontation would be irrefutable proof that this so-called glasshole was merely physically defending himself from your attack, and although what he was doing provoked the attack from you, it would be clear from the recording that he did not deliberately do it to antagonize you personally... you just happened to be someone who got offended enough by it to try and beat the guy up in response.
And failed. So.... you'd get beaten up *AND* still end up facing possible prison.
Think it's worth the risk? If you want privacy, go somewhere private.... if you go out of your way to do something to make yourself more interesting to somebody who isn't actually interested in you in the first place, then you are the one who is inviting the problems that may ensue, not the person recording their surroundings.
Which has to with what, exactly? The article headline said *OUR* atmosphere was leaking oxygen.
If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree
They do. They beat the crap out of glassholes
This is assault, and illegal. Your so-called "right to privacy" does not extend to the right to beat up anybody who you think may be infringing upon it. If someone is breaking the law to infringe on your privacy, your course of action should be to report the crime, not to beat the person up.
The people who take exception to this should note that they,. like most other people around them, are not likely to be interesting enough for other people to even *want* to document everything they do or say in a public place for all time in the first place.
The brain is a recording device too... the fact that we happen to consider it fallible is immaterial... you can record something using a device with lossy compression too.
Reasonably, the objection to being recorded in a public place logically reduces to objecting to other people paying attention to them when they don't want to be. Trying to govern it with laws is trying to control what people are even allowed to *THINK*, and that is something I consider infinitely more morally objectionable than somebody eavesdropping on a conversation that was none of their business or even if they were recording it (as long as it was for their own personal use, just as whatever they have remembered in their own head would be).
It doesn't matter if wetware is not coming as soon as I supposedly think... I mention it to point out that if it were even hypothetically a thing, our existing objection to being recorded with devices should mean that it would be equally objectionable to simply have people *observing*... clearly this is absurd, even in an age where mind-machine interfaces are viable, and so by extension, it must be equally absurd to object to the idea of being recorded in the first place when you are in an area where someone might incidentally be observing you. Again, the fact that no such technology exists right now is irrelevant, since we would not object to simple observation even *IF* that observation were being permanently recorded, so there is no real reason to object to permanent recording in the first place.
If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree that the only way that people will be able to infringe on that privacy is to violate laws allowing people to control who and what is on their own personal property.
It's not that I think if you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide, either... everyone has things that they would rather be private, and I believe everyone is entitled to that... but people should deal with the things that they want to be private in environments that *ARE* private... not in places that are public, which is, you know... the very *opposite* of private. Your privacy when you aren't trying to be in a private place is ultimately dependent not on what you might believe or want, but solely on how much other people want to pay attention to you in the first place, and so worrying about it in such circumstances even at best represents what is probably an inflated opinion of oneself, believing oneself to be far more important to other people that they don't know than is realistically likely to be the case.
So when the premise that might otherwise make one care about it is based on a falsehood (that other people are as interested in them as they are), there's no rational basis to be worried about it.
When I want privacy, I go somewhere private. I step outside, however... and it's fair game.
Because if not, there is no way I can see that "leaked" is the right word.
Obviously,. you could still prosecute people that distribute content that was recorded without permission of the subject, but I see no point to the outcries against people who might record for their own personal use, and in all honesty, are probably not actually *that* interested in you in the first place to notice you, specifically, among everything else they might be recording and actually *are* interested in.
The only caveat to this I would suggest is that without clear signage to the effect that states that an area is being monitored or recorded, a person doing the monitoring or recording must be physically at the location the recording is occurring... I do not think it should necessarily be externally obvious that they are recording anything, however... any more than it should be required that if a person is simply observing people as they go by should be carrying sign saying that they are watching you.
I'd imagine it is fairly trivial to tell that your app was not developed by samsung.
No, it does not. There is no headphone jack on the iphone 7 that is being covered up. You can see this for yourself by watching any one of the umpteen dozen or so iphone 7 teardown videos that are already out.