Except this wasn't people interacting privately... it was at a CORPORATE EVENT. If it was just some people that happened to be from the same company that were going out on their own time to a dance club to have a good time, I'd have no problem with that.
Please... if you are going to throw around ad-hominems, try and be more creative. I'm neither gay nor a prude. I have no problem whatsoever with sex, or even people who would present themselves sexually. Heck, I think even prostitution should be legal. I do, however, have a problem with a deliberately sexually charged atmosphere at a corporate event when the corporation's line of business is entirely independent of it. (At some types of companies, this sort of event could be entirely acceptable and professional).
My point is that there shouldn't be eye fodder for ANYBODY at a corporate event because it is tantamount to sexual harassment. The fact that it's people that are being paid to present themselves as sexual entertainment is entirely irrelevant... the sexual aspect is still being foisted upon each of those who were present, whether it was invited by them or not.
Or... here's a thought.... don't cater to sexuality at all. If people want entertainment that caters to their sexual preference they should be seeking such entertainment on their own time, and not on time that is being paid for by the company dollar.
There's a little something called professionalism, and at a corporate event, this kind of thing is starkly lacking in it.
The alternate iOS that bypasses the passcode delay and auto wipe could be locked to the single device in question.
Could be... but it is nothing less than utter naivety or willful ignorance that could make anyone think that the FBI will not turn around and ask for another phone to be unlocked 10 minutes after Apple were to unlock this one.... and to make the software in such a way that it would not be possible to modify it to work on any device *IS* impossible.
... are there any substantial reasons that developers still choose Eclipse over Netbeans other than philosophical or personal issues such as personally preferring SWT as opposed to Swing, or simply because that might happen to be what they are used to?
I'm particularly curious about this with respect to *current* Eclipse and Netbeans versions, not those of years long since past.
Fair enough... but then you still have to do so explicitly, and in doing so, one also reasonably assumes any responsibilities for deliberately changing that limit, while out of the box, the drone cannot typically go high enough for it to pose a problem... and unless the drone provides constant feedback to its controller about its altitude relative to takeoff point (which some may, but I don't know of any), the average hobbyist may not be entirely sure how high their aircraft is flying if it is not at or at least very near its ceiling altitude. If the ceiling is well below what is legally allowed, then you wouldn't need to worry about it.
That drone has a flight ceiling of 120 meters above the takeoff point, which is nearly 400 feet. Navigable airspace is typically 500+ feet above the ground, except very close to airports.
While I'm sure they exist... all the ones that I've ever seen wouldn't have the range to fly above even the minimum "navigable airspace" altitude except in areas very close to an airport.
Sure... but there already *is* a law for copyright. The question then becomes does a judge have the authority to knowingly allow someone to break an existing law without legal consequence for that violation? I'm pretty sure the answer is no.
It doesn't matter if they have already obtained or not. If they were to obtain it without Apple's permission, then by copyright law, any derivative work that they make from that would still be copyright infringement. Worse, if they were to get it and the source code should happen to get misappropriated from the NSA or leaked out somehow, they could end up being liable for the potentially unbounded number of unauthorized copies that would ensue until the duration of the copyright expired.
No matter who makes those changes, the problem is the same... If Apple makes it and just lets the FBI use it, then the FBI will just keep on asking in the future whenever they need their help, and Apple keeping it around means that there will exist a possibility that it might get misappropriated from Apple. By expecting Apple to cooperate with the FBI, the government is basically telling Apple to play Russian roulette with its own IP. What sane person would voluntarily pull a trigger of a loaded gun that was pointed at their own head, even if they knew that most of the chambers were empty?
If you are "limiting" the amount of data that can be utilized, even indirectly, by just limiting data throughput, then as long as you take "limit" as a verb, by very definition, the amount of data is being limited. Now while obviously the quantity of data is still limited by things like the properties of the physical network layer and even the capacity of the physical network to handle a quantity of data, when any limits are being artificially imposed on a connection by limiting its throughput that would otherwise be much higher, then I cannot see how anyone can argue that the connection still has unlimited data.
It's precisely why three points unambiguously define a unique circle that passes through each of them. Obviously the center of the circle must be equidistant form all of them.
That would mean that even doing someone a favour in exchange for any kind of good or service would also be illegal... since no money will have exchanged hands. For example, saying that I will mow your lawn next week if you let me borrow your car tonight would be an example of a private barter that cannot be taxed, and this is somehow illegal?
While there may be relatively few resources whose availability is not typically unaffected by consumption, there are no lack of resources that are available in numerous places around the globe. You mentioned lumber as one example that can involve slave labour, but by no means is that necessarily reflective of what one can expect. regardless of where they live. Wood imported into the USA from Canada, for instance, which is among the two nations' largest import/export trades with eachother is most definitely *not* obtained through the result of slave labour.
I was only drawing attention to the fact that when the supply is a natural resource, and the availability of that resource is not affected by cultural climate because there is no particular place on the globe where it is especially dominant, and therefore is not potentially subject to the tolerance of slave labour in specific regions, and especially if the availability of the resource is unaffected by whether or not you actually even use it in the first place, then it is pretty far stretch to say that the availability of that resource intrinsically depends upon slave labour. Solar is simply the most obvious example of this that I could think of.
While some solar cells use exotic and rare materials, the standard version (over 95% of all solar cells) on the market uses almost exclusively silicon and aluminum (the two most abundant metals in the earth's crust) for the cell. The only modestly rare element used in many solar cells' construction is silver, which isn't even considered a rare earth element, and only a very tiny amount is needed per cell for its back contact. The silver isn't even technically required if one is willing to take a modest efficiency loss (such as what would be adequate for a solar powered calculator, for instance). On the subject of mining silver, while it is true that some silver mines in the world are driven by slave labour, most of the top ten largest ones are not.
Who is the slave with solar generated electricity? Bear in mind that the sun is burning because of natural laws, and does so regardless of whether we draw power from it or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Except this wasn't people interacting privately... it was at a CORPORATE EVENT. If it was just some people that happened to be from the same company that were going out on their own time to a dance club to have a good time, I'd have no problem with that.
Please... if you are going to throw around ad-hominems, try and be more creative. I'm neither gay nor a prude. I have no problem whatsoever with sex, or even people who would present themselves sexually. Heck, I think even prostitution should be legal. I do, however, have a problem with a deliberately sexually charged atmosphere at a corporate event when the corporation's line of business is entirely independent of it. (At some types of companies, this sort of event could be entirely acceptable and professional).
My point is that there shouldn't be eye fodder for ANYBODY at a corporate event because it is tantamount to sexual harassment. The fact that it's people that are being paid to present themselves as sexual entertainment is entirely irrelevant... the sexual aspect is still being foisted upon each of those who were present, whether it was invited by them or not.
Or... here's a thought.... don't cater to sexuality at all. If people want entertainment that caters to their sexual preference they should be seeking such entertainment on their own time, and not on time that is being paid for by the company dollar.
There's a little something called professionalism, and at a corporate event, this kind of thing is starkly lacking in it.
Could be... but it is nothing less than utter naivety or willful ignorance that could make anyone think that the FBI will not turn around and ask for another phone to be unlocked 10 minutes after Apple were to unlock this one.... and to make the software in such a way that it would not be possible to modify it to work on any device *IS* impossible.
I'm particularly curious about this with respect to *current* Eclipse and Netbeans versions, not those of years long since past.
I read "beacons" as "bacon". And went, like, "huh?"
Oh how I truly hate daylight savings time.
Fair enough... but then you still have to do so explicitly, and in doing so, one also reasonably assumes any responsibilities for deliberately changing that limit, while out of the box, the drone cannot typically go high enough for it to pose a problem... and unless the drone provides constant feedback to its controller about its altitude relative to takeoff point (which some may, but I don't know of any), the average hobbyist may not be entirely sure how high their aircraft is flying if it is not at or at least very near its ceiling altitude. If the ceiling is well below what is legally allowed, then you wouldn't need to worry about it.
That drone has a flight ceiling of 120 meters above the takeoff point, which is nearly 400 feet. Navigable airspace is typically 500+ feet above the ground, except very close to airports.
Right, but the consequences are the other party's, not yours, and may still potentially be held accountable for taking that action.
The minimum navigable airspace height outside of of near airports is 500'. A hundred feet more than the limit you mentioned on hobby class vehicles.
One word. Jailbreak.
While I'm sure they exist... all the ones that I've ever seen wouldn't have the range to fly above even the minimum "navigable airspace" altitude except in areas very close to an airport.
Sure... but there already *is* a law for copyright. The question then becomes does a judge have the authority to knowingly allow someone to break an existing law without legal consequence for that violation? I'm pretty sure the answer is no.
It doesn't matter if they have already obtained or not. If they were to obtain it without Apple's permission, then by copyright law, any derivative work that they make from that would still be copyright infringement. Worse, if they were to get it and the source code should happen to get misappropriated from the NSA or leaked out somehow, they could end up being liable for the potentially unbounded number of unauthorized copies that would ensue until the duration of the copyright expired.
No matter who makes those changes, the problem is the same... If Apple makes it and just lets the FBI use it, then the FBI will just keep on asking in the future whenever they need their help, and Apple keeping it around means that there will exist a possibility that it might get misappropriated from Apple. By expecting Apple to cooperate with the FBI, the government is basically telling Apple to play Russian roulette with its own IP. What sane person would voluntarily pull a trigger of a loaded gun that was pointed at their own head, even if they knew that most of the chambers were empty?
... then isn't the derivative work that they make copyright infringement?
If you are "limiting" the amount of data that can be utilized, even indirectly, by just limiting data throughput, then as long as you take "limit" as a verb, by very definition, the amount of data is being limited. Now while obviously the quantity of data is still limited by things like the properties of the physical network layer and even the capacity of the physical network to handle a quantity of data, when any limits are being artificially imposed on a connection by limiting its throughput that would otherwise be much higher, then I cannot see how anyone can argue that the connection still has unlimited data.
It's precisely why three points unambiguously define a unique circle that passes through each of them. Obviously the center of the circle must be equidistant form all of them.
That would mean that even doing someone a favour in exchange for any kind of good or service would also be illegal... since no money will have exchanged hands. For example, saying that I will mow your lawn next week if you let me borrow your car tonight would be an example of a private barter that cannot be taxed, and this is somehow illegal?
Wouldn't that include any form of barter or trade that did not involve the government sanctioned currency?
This would mean even playing games that use fictional currency would be illegal, wouldn't it?
While there may be relatively few resources whose availability is not typically unaffected by consumption, there are no lack of resources that are available in numerous places around the globe. You mentioned lumber as one example that can involve slave labour, but by no means is that necessarily reflective of what one can expect. regardless of where they live. Wood imported into the USA from Canada, for instance, which is among the two nations' largest import/export trades with eachother is most definitely *not* obtained through the result of slave labour.
I was only drawing attention to the fact that when the supply is a natural resource, and the availability of that resource is not affected by cultural climate because there is no particular place on the globe where it is especially dominant, and therefore is not potentially subject to the tolerance of slave labour in specific regions, and especially if the availability of the resource is unaffected by whether or not you actually even use it in the first place, then it is pretty far stretch to say that the availability of that resource intrinsically depends upon slave labour. Solar is simply the most obvious example of this that I could think of.
While some solar cells use exotic and rare materials, the standard version (over 95% of all solar cells) on the market uses almost exclusively silicon and aluminum (the two most abundant metals in the earth's crust) for the cell. The only modestly rare element used in many solar cells' construction is silver, which isn't even considered a rare earth element, and only a very tiny amount is needed per cell for its back contact. The silver isn't even technically required if one is willing to take a modest efficiency loss (such as what would be adequate for a solar powered calculator, for instance). On the subject of mining silver, while it is true that some silver mines in the world are driven by slave labour, most of the top ten largest ones are not.
Try again.
Who is the slave with solar generated electricity? Bear in mind that the sun is burning because of natural laws, and does so regardless of whether we draw power from it or not.