Maybe Apple will now figure out how to have the newer iOS installed and running on the older hardware, assuming that the older hardware has the necessary encryption support.
Well, they are dong the "right thing" according to market theory. They are fulfilling a desire that people are willing to pay for in a way that keeps their burden as low as possible. I know that such a thing is considered inherently evil here on slashdot. All of those clashing gears as brains try to figure out whether giving in to market principles is a bigger evil than encryption for the masses is a good thing.
Isn't it amazing that this is basically the market at work and Apple is being attacked because "they aren't doing this to help you, they are doing this because it will generate more sales for them." Exactly, doing something people want because that is the easiest and most honest way to make money is now considered an evil thing to be doing.
Thank you. It really is too bad that our school system no longer teaches anything about the Constitution (with the possible exception of "it was written a long time ago by a bunch of white guys who owned slaves").
It also doesn't help that our current President is considered a constitutional scholar and has yet to find that little gem, as if it were hidden deep in the bowels of the fine print.
Maybe, just maybe, because that backdoor provides a vulnerability that can be hacked. One less complication in the system means at least one less vulnerability to be exploited.
Uh, not exactly. If I direct Amazon to act on my behalf, it is me.
Let's try this to see how hiring someone to act on your behalf still means that you did it. I don't like Joe. I don't like Joe so much that I hire Fred to murder Joe. Fred murders Joe. Fred gets caught and snitches on me. I do all of this in Germany. Does the German government all of a sudden realize that there is nothing they can do about me because I was smart enough to hire Fred or does the German government also claim I am guilty of murder? If this were to happen in the US, I would be guilty of the murder itself as well as the conspiracy to commit it and the hiring it out. Maybe in Germany it doesn't matter so they only get me for the conspiracy and hiring part.
Or they could have taken the rational approach and said that if the someone soliciting it (clicking on the button) is not associated with the company and/or has an outside relationship with the recipients, then the company is simply acting on behalf of the purchaser and then that still takes care of actual spammers.
So the current Amazon Prime offering that is based on one of Phillip K. Dicks novels would be banned in Germany because of the prominent use of the swastika? Or is it only certain, government approved, uses of the the swastika that are acceptable. So Germany could restrict a movie that featured swastikas even it if wasn't promoting Nazism but they still didn't like the content?
And if Germany were truly enforcing its laws in an unbiased manner, nearly every posting on slashdot originating in Germany would be banned because of the insults to various US government agencies and leaders. Now that is some true freedom their folks.
This description in the wikipedia article is simply awesome in its irony: "which also states that there is no censorship and freedom of expression may be limited by law." Get that, German law does not allow censorship except where German law demands it. Yup, true freedom happening over there folks.
This is why Americans point out that most European countries do not have "freedom of speech". Your constitutions say you have it until your legislators say you don't. Our Constitution says we have it until the Government can prove to our courts that major harm to society will happen unless we restrict it. Both allow for limits but one is much closer to actual freedom than the other.
No, freedom of speech means the government is not in the business of deciding what is bullshit and what is valuable (from a speech perspective).
If freedom of speech means exactly that the government has a responsibility to censor based on the content of the message, then you have truly found the Orwellian definition of it.
True, but they have yet to rule that me sending them an email is "stuffing it down their throat". In fact, US courts have ruled that a physical (real-world) relationship does imply the level of consent needed to send emails and even phone calls.
The US courts, so far, have not ruled that my asking a third party to act on my behalf is not the same as me having done it myself.
I guess Germans can now take comfort in the fact that they can no hire a hitman to do their killing and not be held responsible for the murder.
Obviously people are having trouble realizing that a person can actually ask another person to do something on their behalf and that sometimes the "person" being asked is just a machine. I guess Germany doesn't have realtors or any other form of sales agent.
When you signed up for a social media account and said you were interested in seeing things that your friends posted, then yes, you solicited that communication. Do you have any clue what social media is and what it does?
And if you were my "friend" and asked to be removed from my contacts list, yes, I would do that. As others have said, you have (had?) a crappy friend.
Yes, what the German court ruled is that a corporation has no right to ask a customer if the corporation should do some list processing on behalf of the customer. Everyone realizes that, even in Germany, rulings at that level are about legal principles and not about the two entities named in the case, right?
Next up will be Microsoft and Google docs for providing mail merge functionality.
From a guy who learns about court cases by reading blogs written by people with an agenda instead of reading court cases. The ruling you are referring to said nothing about corporations being people; it simply pointed out that corporations (especially corporations formed for the sole purpose of pooling money to make political speech) retain all the rights of the individual people that formed the corporation and directed the corporation to do something.
The ruling also pointed out that all the idiot employees of left-leaning media corporations yammering on about how corporations should not be allowed to make political speech were being a bit hypocritical.
I think someone who never actually clicked the button sued Amazon.
It is amazing how many hoops people are willing to jump through trying to prove that Person A asking (or giving permission to) Person B to do something on behalf of Person A is not Person A doing it.
Next up will be a ruling claiming that social media itself is violating some law or the other because "automated list processing" instead of personally writing every damn note with quill and ink.
Yup and Germany has no freedom of speech. Oh Germans will claim otherwise but their courts just told them that, no, you do not have the freedom to tell all your social media contacts what you are doing and if you do, we will harm the guy that helped you do it.
No, i based my statement on the fact, as i said, that European countries are all willfully moving down the path deeper into socialism which is moving towards communism. I base thi son the fact that very many liberals in both Europe and the US makes statements about communism not being such a bad idea and trumpeting how much good Stalin did for his people and how much good many other current dictators who claim to be communists are doing for their people.
To me, that can be considered a "love affair".
And furthermore, who the hell are "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket or do you fancy yourself as some kind of royalty?
Oh yeah, communism is so much better than fascism or national-socialism.
Since private enterprises are just people, i can see why people being beholden to the government is a much better situation than the government being beholden to the people. AC, do you even think through what you say or do you actually believe that communism and dictatorships are the best thing going?
I based my opinion on the fact that the GP's first thought for an evil police state was Nazi Germany that was defeated 70 years ago and not his big neighbor that did the same thing and was only defeated (sort of but not really) about 15 years ago and asked myself, "Why would that be?" The answer could not possibly be because Nazi Germany is considered to be right-wing and Communism left-wing and European countries are generally left-leaning. So I used a bit of hyperbole. Let's call it literary license and move on.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe Apple will now figure out how to have the newer iOS installed and running on the older hardware, assuming that the older hardware has the necessary encryption support.
Wait, Hillary lying. Impossible. Never. Why she won't even associate with anyone who even thinks about shading the truth just a tad.
Army, Navy, Air Force... just the little things in life.
Well, they are dong the "right thing" according to market theory. They are fulfilling a desire that people are willing to pay for in a way that keeps their burden as low as possible. I know that such a thing is considered inherently evil here on slashdot. All of those clashing gears as brains try to figure out whether giving in to market principles is a bigger evil than encryption for the masses is a good thing.
Isn't it amazing that this is basically the market at work and Apple is being attacked because "they aren't doing this to help you, they are doing this because it will generate more sales for them." Exactly, doing something people want because that is the easiest and most honest way to make money is now considered an evil thing to be doing.
Sometimes, only sometimes.
Thank you. It really is too bad that our school system no longer teaches anything about the Constitution (with the possible exception of "it was written a long time ago by a bunch of white guys who owned slaves").
It also doesn't help that our current President is considered a constitutional scholar and has yet to find that little gem, as if it were hidden deep in the bowels of the fine print.
Maybe, just maybe, because that backdoor provides a vulnerability that can be hacked. One less complication in the system means at least one less vulnerability to be exploited.
Uh, not exactly. If I direct Amazon to act on my behalf, it is me.
Let's try this to see how hiring someone to act on your behalf still means that you did it. I don't like Joe. I don't like Joe so much that I hire Fred to murder Joe. Fred murders Joe. Fred gets caught and snitches on me. I do all of this in Germany. Does the German government all of a sudden realize that there is nothing they can do about me because I was smart enough to hire Fred or does the German government also claim I am guilty of murder? If this were to happen in the US, I would be guilty of the murder itself as well as the conspiracy to commit it and the hiring it out. Maybe in Germany it doesn't matter so they only get me for the conspiracy and hiring part.
Or they could have taken the rational approach and said that if the someone soliciting it (clicking on the button) is not associated with the company and/or has an outside relationship with the recipients, then the company is simply acting on behalf of the purchaser and then that still takes care of actual spammers.
And defining abuse is censorship and then no more freedom...
So the current Amazon Prime offering that is based on one of Phillip K. Dicks novels would be banned in Germany because of the prominent use of the swastika? Or is it only certain, government approved, uses of the the swastika that are acceptable. So Germany could restrict a movie that featured swastikas even it if wasn't promoting Nazism but they still didn't like the content?
And if Germany were truly enforcing its laws in an unbiased manner, nearly every posting on slashdot originating in Germany would be banned because of the insults to various US government agencies and leaders. Now that is some true freedom their folks.
This description in the wikipedia article is simply awesome in its irony: "which also states that there is no censorship and freedom of expression may be limited by law." Get that, German law does not allow censorship except where German law demands it. Yup, true freedom happening over there folks.
This is why Americans point out that most European countries do not have "freedom of speech". Your constitutions say you have it until your legislators say you don't. Our Constitution says we have it until the Government can prove to our courts that major harm to society will happen unless we restrict it. Both allow for limits but one is much closer to actual freedom than the other.
No, freedom of speech means the government is not in the business of deciding what is bullshit and what is valuable (from a speech perspective).
If freedom of speech means exactly that the government has a responsibility to censor based on the content of the message, then you have truly found the Orwellian definition of it.
True, but they have yet to rule that me sending them an email is "stuffing it down their throat". In fact, US courts have ruled that a physical (real-world) relationship does imply the level of consent needed to send emails and even phone calls.
The US courts, so far, have not ruled that my asking a third party to act on my behalf is not the same as me having done it myself.
I guess Germans can now take comfort in the fact that they can no hire a hitman to do their killing and not be held responsible for the murder.
In exactly what way is the ability to communicate with other humans not a human right?
Exactly what category of right is freedom of speech if not a human right?
Obviously people are having trouble realizing that a person can actually ask another person to do something on their behalf and that sometimes the "person" being asked is just a machine. I guess Germany doesn't have realtors or any other form of sales agent.
When you signed up for a social media account and said you were interested in seeing things that your friends posted, then yes, you solicited that communication. Do you have any clue what social media is and what it does?
And if you were my "friend" and asked to be removed from my contacts list, yes, I would do that. As others have said, you have (had?) a crappy friend.
Yes, what the German court ruled is that a corporation has no right to ask a customer if the corporation should do some list processing on behalf of the customer. Everyone realizes that, even in Germany, rulings at that level are about legal principles and not about the two entities named in the case, right?
Next up will be Microsoft and Google docs for providing mail merge functionality.
From a guy who learns about court cases by reading blogs written by people with an agenda instead of reading court cases. The ruling you are referring to said nothing about corporations being people; it simply pointed out that corporations (especially corporations formed for the sole purpose of pooling money to make political speech) retain all the rights of the individual people that formed the corporation and directed the corporation to do something.
The ruling also pointed out that all the idiot employees of left-leaning media corporations yammering on about how corporations should not be allowed to make political speech were being a bit hypocritical.
I think someone who never actually clicked the button sued Amazon.
It is amazing how many hoops people are willing to jump through trying to prove that Person A asking (or giving permission to) Person B to do something on behalf of Person A is not Person A doing it.
Next up will be a ruling claiming that social media itself is violating some law or the other because "automated list processing" instead of personally writing every damn note with quill and ink.
Hey, dude. Amazon didn't spam anyone. They simply helped your "friends" do it in exactly the same way that social media sites are intended to.
Yup and Germany has no freedom of speech. Oh Germans will claim otherwise but their courts just told them that, no, you do not have the freedom to tell all your social media contacts what you are doing and if you do, we will harm the guy that helped you do it.
No, i based my statement on the fact, as i said, that European countries are all willfully moving down the path deeper into socialism which is moving towards communism. I base thi son the fact that very many liberals in both Europe and the US makes statements about communism not being such a bad idea and trumpeting how much good Stalin did for his people and how much good many other current dictators who claim to be communists are doing for their people.
To me, that can be considered a "love affair".
And furthermore, who the hell are "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket or do you fancy yourself as some kind of royalty?
Oh yeah, communism is so much better than fascism or national-socialism.
Since private enterprises are just people, i can see why people being beholden to the government is a much better situation than the government being beholden to the people. AC, do you even think through what you say or do you actually believe that communism and dictatorships are the best thing going?
I based my opinion on the fact that the GP's first thought for an evil police state was Nazi Germany that was defeated 70 years ago and not his big neighbor that did the same thing and was only defeated (sort of but not really) about 15 years ago and asked myself, "Why would that be?" The answer could not possibly be because Nazi Germany is considered to be right-wing and Communism left-wing and European countries are generally left-leaning. So I used a bit of hyperbole. Let's call it literary license and move on.