then saying a photo and an ID for a domain registration is too much to stand for the sake of freedome?
Yeah, that's right, requiring a photograph of the registrant is too much. Sure, a lot of scam sites are registered with Chinese domain names. If you think the Chinese government requires photographs and business IDs for the purpose of reducing the number of scam sites, then you're being naive. The government wants that information to stop political speech it doesn't like, it has nothing to do with scam sites. So, yeah, it's a reduction in freedom to make those requirements. It should also be fairly apparent that any criminals who want to set up a scam site are not going to submit their own picture. What happens if they get caught, their site gets shut down? Big deal, they start another one with fraudulent information and keep going. This isn't supposed to stop criminals, it's supposed to stop political dissidents.
Smaller than any dsl or cable box, uses less power too I'd bet.
And probably only costs about 8x as much. You expect people to replace their internet connection with a phone? I'll just point out that won't work for anyone who lives in a household containing more than one person and doesn't want to buy a dedicated phone to act as their gateway. For anyone living alone, maybe that would be an option, but it sort of sucks that if you lose your phone you also lose your internet connectivity at home.
So then the answer is no. No, EVDO, WiMAX, and Wi-Fi do not apply to voice, since voice goes over CDMA. EVDO, WiMAX, and Wi-Fi are for transferring data, and EVDO will not run if you're using CDMA.
That's true, but regardless of whether or not this is meant as advertising, the introduction of a phone like this into the US market is also certainly newsworthy. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Well, let's see if I understand what "or" means. If I'm wrong, I know you'll (attempt to) correct me.
You use rotten to emphasize your dislike for something or your anger or annoyance about it.
So let's see.. that definition means that any of these could be true:
You are emphasizing your dislike for something
You are emphasizing your anger about something
You are emphasizing your annoyance about something
So, any one of those statements could be true, and it would still satisfy the definition. Since this is an or condition, and not an and condition, that means that only one needs to be true in order for the definition to be satisfied. So, assuming this is true:
You are emphasizing your dislike for something
Then that would satisfy the definition, and it would still not imply any emotional instability or being "upset". Therefore, one can think that something is rotten, i.e. dislike something, and still not be upset about it. There is no definition I see on Google for "upset" which is simply synonymous with "dislike".
So clearly you're trying to assume that you know the mental state of the OP, but he gave no evidence for what his mental state might be. At this point it certainly seems like you're a bit too obtuse to understand this.
The browser is responsible for this, not DNS. When I hover over the links, such as the post above yours or those in TFA, I see in the status bar the normal octet IP. So the browser does that translation, not DNS. In fact, I see this text above:
don't you mean in this blog post [3273372964]?
But when I hover over that or copy the link, I get this:
No, that's a good definition. Dislike is a good term. I dislike Apple. Dislike doesn't mean upset. If you think it does, then you also think that anyone who dislikes anything walks around in a perpetual state of being emotionally upset.
That's not optimism, that's a challenge to Apple. I'll give you 10 to 1 odds that they've already got a "submission rejected" page on their server ready to go.
Maybe you're just projecting, but I don't see an indication that the OP is upset. He's saying that Opera mini runs fast on Android (so, apparently, he's an Android owner), that he expects Opera to get denied by Apple, and that he doesn't like Apple. I don't like Apple either, in fact I dislike Apple more than any other company at this point, but I'm not "upset" about anything they do. Surprised maybe, possibly a little confused, maybe empathetic towards people who choose to develop for the Apple platform, but not upset.
I was going to post the exact same thing, this is one of the most passive-aggressive things I've seen a company do. I love the competition to guess when Apple is going to approve it (and win a free iPhone!). Bonus points for anyone who can find the URL of the page which probably already exists which explains that it was denied.
I don't know who "Yahtzee" is, other than a Hasbro trademark, but Richard Garriot has been making video games since the late 70s as Lord British. If you haven't heard of him before 2010, it's not because he's been quiet.
They may lie, but they aren't supposed to forge documents.
Prove it.
It is well accepted that deception is often "necessary" to catch those who break the law. There is no question that police officers are allowed to directly mislead and/or deceive others about their identity, their law enforcement status, their history, and just about anything else
They also aren't granted carte blanche to break TOS and therefore "hack" into any website they like.
If you're referring to these sections in the Facebook TOS:
You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.
...
You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.
.. then I would have a couple counter-arguments. First, I acknowledge that, yes, they would be in violation of the TOS, that's obvious from the above statements. But, if you're saying that misrepresenting yourself on Facebook is a violation of the terms, then there are many, many Facebook users which are in violation of this. I'm not going to say it's "most" or give some arbitrary number, but you've got to admit that a large portion of users misrepresent themselves. In effect, everyone only says what they want other people to know. Therefore, it should be expected that law enforcement would follow the social norms. They aren't breaking any laws by doing so. It's not a crime to breach the Facebook TOS. It might not be usable in court as evidence, but it's not a crime. When they go deep undercover with gangs they need to do a lot worse than breach a TOS in order to get the trust and evidence they need. Read about some of the investigations of the Hell's Angels or Mongols, that's what I'm talking about.
Does Facebook grant a TOS exception for law enforcement?
Not that I can see. But I'm not claiming that I know the whole story.
It is still against the law to gain access to a computer through fraud isn't it?
See above.
Yeah... how about that, it turns out written law isn't the only law.
You're exactly right. Written law is not the only law.
I'm shocked, how about you?
Spare me the sarcasm, please. If you want to discuss this we can, you don't need to be a dick.
I'll also say this: if some criminal out there who posts about their exploits on Twitter, or Facebook, or MySpace, or Slashdot, or whatever, thinks that doing so is a good idea, then they deserve to get caught. This (the internet) is a public forum. Why would law enforcement not be able to use readily-available public information?
It is the nature of round-the-clock access to a person's profile and life, and the spillover into their friend's lives... that makes this a more intrusive form of investigation.
Go up to an agent or detective and tell him that you think his investigation into the private life of his murder or drug dealing suspect is too intrusive. See what he says. After he stops laughing, of course, you'll need to wait for that.
Are Police Allowed to Lie? The question of whether or not the police may lie during the course of their work goes hand in hand with the question of entrapment.
It is well accepted that deception is often "necessary" to catch those who break the law. There is no question that police officers are allowed to directly mislead and/or deceive others about their identity, their law enforcement status, their history, and just about anything else, without breaking the law or compromising their case. Conversely, it is illegal for an ordinary citizen to lie to the police in many jurisdictions.
What China should fear is instead the risk of having their connection to the rest of the internet cut off or at least limited.
Thankfully for China the internet is not controlled by a single entity. Google doesn't have any say about the connectivity for Chinese citizens. Google leaving isn't going to hurt the Chinese, at least no more than what their government is already doing to them. It may be a little demoralizing when they realize that the reason they no longer have access to a very popular, useful worldwide resource is because their government doesn't like the information there, but it's not going to cause harm. It may open some eyes, but no heads are going to get bashed in.
For Pink Floyd this is about artistic integrity, not profit. They've already made their money. For EMI it's all about profit, and that's why Pink Floyd put that provision in the contract.
This is a win for Pink Floyd, and a loss for labels who think they can do whatever they want.
Slashdot Mirror
then saying a photo and an ID for a domain registration is too much to stand for the sake of freedome?
Yeah, that's right, requiring a photograph of the registrant is too much. Sure, a lot of scam sites are registered with Chinese domain names. If you think the Chinese government requires photographs and business IDs for the purpose of reducing the number of scam sites, then you're being naive. The government wants that information to stop political speech it doesn't like, it has nothing to do with scam sites. So, yeah, it's a reduction in freedom to make those requirements. It should also be fairly apparent that any criminals who want to set up a scam site are not going to submit their own picture. What happens if they get caught, their site gets shut down? Big deal, they start another one with fraudulent information and keep going. This isn't supposed to stop criminals, it's supposed to stop political dissidents.
On and one more thing, the Washington post article is WRONG TOO.
Thanks for THE INFORMATION.
I was just assuming that what ircmaxwell said was true, that voice still goes over CDMA.
Smaller than any dsl or cable box, uses less power too I'd bet.
And probably only costs about 8x as much. You expect people to replace their internet connection with a phone? I'll just point out that won't work for anyone who lives in a household containing more than one person and doesn't want to buy a dedicated phone to act as their gateway. For anyone living alone, maybe that would be an option, but it sort of sucks that if you lose your phone you also lose your internet connectivity at home.
Well, yes and no.
So then the answer is no. No, EVDO, WiMAX, and Wi-Fi do not apply to voice, since voice goes over CDMA. EVDO, WiMAX, and Wi-Fi are for transferring data, and EVDO will not run if you're using CDMA.
That's true, but regardless of whether or not this is meant as advertising, the introduction of a phone like this into the US market is also certainly newsworthy. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Well, let's see if I understand what "or" means. If I'm wrong, I know you'll (attempt to) correct me.
You use rotten to emphasize your dislike for something or your anger or annoyance about it.
So let's see.. that definition means that any of these could be true:
You are emphasizing your dislike for something
You are emphasizing your anger about something
You are emphasizing your annoyance about something
So, any one of those statements could be true, and it would still satisfy the definition. Since this is an or condition, and not an and condition, that means that only one needs to be true in order for the definition to be satisfied. So, assuming this is true:
You are emphasizing your dislike for something
Then that would satisfy the definition, and it would still not imply any emotional instability or being "upset". Therefore, one can think that something is rotten, i.e. dislike something, and still not be upset about it. There is no definition I see on Google for "upset" which is simply synonymous with "dislike".
So clearly you're trying to assume that you know the mental state of the OP, but he gave no evidence for what his mental state might be. At this point it certainly seems like you're a bit too obtuse to understand this.
The browser is responsible for this, not DNS. When I hover over the links, such as the post above yours or those in TFA, I see in the status bar the normal octet IP. So the browser does that translation, not DNS. In fact, I see this text above:
don't you mean in this blog post [3273372964]?
But when I hover over that or copy the link, I get this:
http://195.27.181.36/en/weblog?weblogid=208188044
No, that's a good definition. Dislike is a good term. I dislike Apple. Dislike doesn't mean upset. If you think it does, then you also think that anyone who dislikes anything walks around in a perpetual state of being emotionally upset.
This is a fun discussion.
Which one of these statements is an indication of emotional state:
Opera mini is blazing on android. Too bad this will fail just like google failed. Apple is a rotten company.
From what I can tell, that's 3 opinions.
That's not optimism, that's a challenge to Apple. I'll give you 10 to 1 odds that they've already got a "submission rejected" page on their server ready to go.
Maybe you're just projecting, but I don't see an indication that the OP is upset. He's saying that Opera mini runs fast on Android (so, apparently, he's an Android owner), that he expects Opera to get denied by Apple, and that he doesn't like Apple. I don't like Apple either, in fact I dislike Apple more than any other company at this point, but I'm not "upset" about anything they do. Surprised maybe, possibly a little confused, maybe empathetic towards people who choose to develop for the Apple platform, but not upset.
I was going to post the exact same thing, this is one of the most passive-aggressive things I've seen a company do. I love the competition to guess when Apple is going to approve it (and win a free iPhone!). Bonus points for anyone who can find the URL of the page which probably already exists which explains that it was denied.
That's real logical. So the next time I'm searching for articles tagged "badneptunenobiscuit", this will appear. Good to know.
It was not clear that this was a real bug, there were no details known.
It was part of a penetration testing kit. If nothing else, they could have gotten the kit and looked at how it attacked the browser.
So what happened was that somebody, who we not know if he is to be trusted, claimed there was a bug. Imagine!
Yeah, clearly the lesson here is not to trust anyone who you don't know. That's the whole mantra around OSS, right? Only trust the big boys, right?
www.barbieslapp.com was not at all what I was hoping it would be about.
Exactly how smart do you think the PR people at Viacon, excuse me, Viacom, are?
In all fairness, NCSoft was responsible for the failure of Tabula Rasa, not Garriott. The same could be said about EA's involvement in Ultima 9.
I don't know who "Yahtzee" is, other than a Hasbro trademark, but Richard Garriot has been making video games since the late 70s as Lord British. If you haven't heard of him before 2010, it's not because he's been quiet.
They may lie, but they aren't supposed to forge documents.
Prove it.
It is well accepted that deception is often "necessary" to catch those who break the law. There is no question that police officers are allowed to directly mislead and/or deceive others about their identity, their law enforcement status, their history, and just about anything else
They also aren't granted carte blanche to break TOS and therefore "hack" into any website they like.
If you're referring to these sections in the Facebook TOS:
You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.
...
You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.
.. then I would have a couple counter-arguments. First, I acknowledge that, yes, they would be in violation of the TOS, that's obvious from the above statements. But, if you're saying that misrepresenting yourself on Facebook is a violation of the terms, then there are many, many Facebook users which are in violation of this. I'm not going to say it's "most" or give some arbitrary number, but you've got to admit that a large portion of users misrepresent themselves. In effect, everyone only says what they want other people to know. Therefore, it should be expected that law enforcement would follow the social norms. They aren't breaking any laws by doing so. It's not a crime to breach the Facebook TOS. It might not be usable in court as evidence, but it's not a crime. When they go deep undercover with gangs they need to do a lot worse than breach a TOS in order to get the trust and evidence they need. Read about some of the investigations of the Hell's Angels or Mongols, that's what I'm talking about.
Does Facebook grant a TOS exception for law enforcement?
Not that I can see. But I'm not claiming that I know the whole story.
It is still against the law to gain access to a computer through fraud isn't it?
See above.
Yeah... how about that, it turns out written law isn't the only law.
You're exactly right. Written law is not the only law.
I'm shocked, how about you?
Spare me the sarcasm, please. If you want to discuss this we can, you don't need to be a dick.
I'll also say this: if some criminal out there who posts about their exploits on Twitter, or Facebook, or MySpace, or Slashdot, or whatever, thinks that doing so is a good idea, then they deserve to get caught. This (the internet) is a public forum. Why would law enforcement not be able to use readily-available public information?
It is the nature of round-the-clock access to a person's profile and life, and the spillover into their friend's lives ... that makes this a more intrusive form of investigation.
Go up to an agent or detective and tell him that you think his investigation into the private life of his murder or drug dealing suspect is too intrusive. See what he says. After he stops laughing, of course, you'll need to wait for that.
They are required to identify themselves in person, are they not?
No, they're not.
Why should online be any different?
It shouldn't.
source
Are Police Allowed to Lie?
The question of whether or not the police may lie during the course of their work goes hand in hand with the question of entrapment.
It is well accepted that deception is often "necessary" to catch those who break the law. There is no question that police officers are allowed to directly mislead and/or deceive others about their identity, their law enforcement status, their history, and just about anything else, without breaking the law or compromising their case. Conversely, it is illegal for an ordinary citizen to lie to the police in many jurisdictions.
XML was "founded"? What is it, a city? An institution?
What China should fear is instead the risk of having their connection to the rest of the internet cut off or at least limited.
Thankfully for China the internet is not controlled by a single entity. Google doesn't have any say about the connectivity for Chinese citizens. Google leaving isn't going to hurt the Chinese, at least no more than what their government is already doing to them. It may be a little demoralizing when they realize that the reason they no longer have access to a very popular, useful worldwide resource is because their government doesn't like the information there, but it's not going to cause harm. It may open some eyes, but no heads are going to get bashed in.
For Pink Floyd this is about artistic integrity, not profit. They've already made their money. For EMI it's all about profit, and that's why Pink Floyd put that provision in the contract.
This is a win for Pink Floyd, and a loss for labels who think they can do whatever they want.