If you claim the Constitution applies to U.S. citizens regardless of location, then suddenly non-citizens (both legal and illegal) and even people brought into the country against their will (e.g. alleged terrorists captured in Iraq and Afghanistan) have no basis for claiming Constitutional rights.
How does that follow?
If you claim the Constitution applies outside U.S. territory, then you're basically advocating that the U.S. should be allowed to apply its laws to other countries.
Umm, no, it's not advocating that at all. What it's advocating is that the US government should be subject to the restrictions imposed by the Constitution no matter where it's operating. It's about US government actions, not about applying US law to other countries.
This is one of the things, sure, but this is hardly a "modern" phenomenon.
Another thing that's wrong with journalism is people who only read the headlines, and people who think that the headlines are intended to be a neutral summary of the article. They are not -- headlines are, and always have been, a sales tool.
Isn't there any provision in law for design flaws?
Yes. If you are sold a device that is not "fit for purpose", then the law allows for you to get reimbursed. This is separate from warranty considerations.
When you have a device without any user replaceable parts, you really cannot guarantee a product more than a year.
This argument makes no sense. How does a lack of user replaceable parts in any way affect what term a manufacturer can or cannot guarantee a product for? After all, they can just replace the entire device.
In my area "headphones" is a general term for all devices that you wear and that play sounds into your ears. Forgive me for having a different dialect than you.
Once I realized that people were thinking I meant over-the-ear headphones, I corrected my statement. Twice.
Warranties are pretty pointless, in my opinion, because the terms are so short. If a device only lasts the term of the warranty, then it's disposable and not worth hundreds of dollars -- but almost all devices aren't as terrible as that. So I ignore warranties.
Credit scores aren't designed to be fair to their subjects; they're designed to be useful for someone who is thinking of lending money
Precisely my point.
It's perfectly possible for someone to use credit cards and pay them off monthly.
Of course. If you don't (or can't) do that, then it's pretty nutty to have a credit card at all. My point is that the notion that you have to take on debt (even if briefly) in order to be considered financially responsible is self-contradictory. Financial responsibility means keeping your financial obligations as low as possible as well as meeting the obligations you do have.
I doubt that's happening anytime soon. The irrational hatred for Google Glass has made that an untouchable for the consumer space, at least for a few more years.
This. Although there are some biometric systems that aren't terribly fuzzy, they also aren't touchless and can't be done in a device the size of a smartphone.
Slashdot Mirror
Even better, and easier, is to not carry any electronics that have any personal information at all on them.
Ship them ahead to your destination through a parcel service, and carry a burner phone for your communication needs en route.
Less
If you claim the Constitution applies to U.S. citizens regardless of location, then suddenly non-citizens (both legal and illegal) and even people brought into the country against their will (e.g. alleged terrorists captured in Iraq and Afghanistan) have no basis for claiming Constitutional rights.
How does that follow?
If you claim the Constitution applies outside U.S. territory, then you're basically advocating that the U.S. should be allowed to apply its laws to other countries.
Umm, no, it's not advocating that at all. What it's advocating is that the US government should be subject to the restrictions imposed by the Constitution no matter where it's operating. It's about US government actions, not about applying US law to other countries.
But your recommendations do nothing to address the problem of having a two-party system.
I think that for two reasons: because you're on a payment plan, and because you get locked into a carrier contract.
Why do you put up with this crap?
Because there's nothing (or very little) that ordinary people can do about it.
This is what is wrong with modern journalism.
This is one of the things, sure, but this is hardly a "modern" phenomenon.
Another thing that's wrong with journalism is people who only read the headlines, and people who think that the headlines are intended to be a neutral summary of the article. They are not -- headlines are, and always have been, a sales tool.
Isn't there any provision in law for design flaws?
Yes. If you are sold a device that is not "fit for purpose", then the law allows for you to get reimbursed. This is separate from warranty considerations.
The court case, however, is about the warranty.
When you have a device without any user replaceable parts, you really cannot guarantee a product more than a year.
This argument makes no sense. How does a lack of user replaceable parts in any way affect what term a manufacturer can or cannot guarantee a product for? After all, they can just replace the entire device.
This would be interesting if we're talking about the Star Trek before Abrams transformed it into whatever it is now.
Naming things in an unclear and/or confusing manner is a time-honored tradition in the Java world.
Speaking for myself, I use Eclipse because I develop for a wide array of platforms, and using a number of different languages.
Eclipse can accommodate everything I need, so I can use the same IDE for all of my projects. That's a pretty huge win.
The less that I have to deal with Oracle, the better my life is.
In my area "headphones" is a general term for all devices that you wear and that play sounds into your ears. Forgive me for having a different dialect than you.
Once I realized that people were thinking I meant over-the-ear headphones, I corrected my statement. Twice.
(because it's subsidized)
It's not subsidized. They've given you a loan.
A million times this.
If you're buying your phone from your service provider, you're getting soaked. Particularly if that purchase ties you into a service contract.
Warranties are pretty pointless, in my opinion, because the terms are so short. If a device only lasts the term of the warranty, then it's disposable and not worth hundreds of dollars -- but almost all devices aren't as terrible as that. So I ignore warranties.
I'm not really a fanboy. A fanboy has an emotional attachment to whatever they're a fan of. I don't have an emotional attachment to Android.
Credit scores aren't designed to be fair to their subjects; they're designed to be useful for someone who is thinking of lending money
Precisely my point.
It's perfectly possible for someone to use credit cards and pay them off monthly.
Of course. If you don't (or can't) do that, then it's pretty nutty to have a credit card at all. My point is that the notion that you have to take on debt (even if briefly) in order to be considered financially responsible is self-contradictory. Financial responsibility means keeping your financial obligations as low as possible as well as meeting the obligations you do have.
In my opinion, Android's cut-and-paste is pretty bad. The best I can say for it is it's "usable", but it's a pain to use and very limited.
I use Android phones because they meet my needs much better than the others.
I doubt that's happening anytime soon. The irrational hatred for Google Glass has made that an untouchable for the consumer space, at least for a few more years.
What's wrong with "partner"? It sounds much nicer than "significant other", and retains the benefit of being nonspecific.
This. Although there are some biometric systems that aren't terribly fuzzy, they also aren't touchless and can't be done in a device the size of a smartphone.
It was a pretty good idea back when Android tablets did it.
I disagree. That lack still drives me nuts when I'm using a tablet.