There is a perfectly legal way to do that. The UK Foreign Secretary, William Hague writes a formal statement of repudiation and submits it to the US and the UN. After six months the treaty is nullified.
Countries aren't bound by treaties until the sun explodes.
You are an expert on your life's experience. Anything you need to look up you are not an expert on. If you want a question answered you ask the court to answer it.
Don't forget those sorts of demands create reasons to get off juries. The courts are not going to be anxious to create situations where potential jurors can walk and/or mistrial.
None of the articles cited state the profit margin on the hardware, which I suspect is quite low. The profit is all in the app store and iTunes store...
No the profit is on hardware. They don't make much from the app store or iTunes store yet. Longer terms as the hardware profits dry up this might become an important revenue source. Now on the iPad where the hardware profits are lower and the apps more expensive the share is much higher.
Actually you can get a reasonable Android phone for about £20 at ASDA right now
I don't know that market specifically, but most likely you are talking subsidized cost. That doesn't really mean much. The question is what does the phone retail for not what it sells for with a contract.
I've heard good things about the Nexus. But ultimately what end users care about is the experience as delivered. If allowing carriers choice results in a worse end user experience that's a reasonable thing to be critical of. The same way I think Microsoft deserves blame for allowing their OS to be delivered will with adware.
Perhaps more to the point, if consumers somehow become unwilling to pay that premium in droves, perhaps because more cost effective alternatives exist, what will happen to that revenue stream, and consequently, Apple's share price?
A fall off in margins is priced into Apple's stock. Wall Street is banking on Apple not being able to sustain margins well above industry averages over the next decade. If either:
a) The margins fall off and sales skyrocket b) Margins don't fall off
The stock will do very well.
In the case the margins fall off it comes down to how fast.
But the Gnome 3 messaging / notification system is semi interactive. What is supposed to happen is that when you hover over a notification an applications specific "action mode" occurs. In this action mode you can interact with the application in a limited and appropriate way.
For example in an IM app you can type a quick response from the messaging system you don't have to go back to the IM app. Conversely from a music application (showing you currently playing track) you can stop, pause or skip the track without having to go to the full music application.
The application would need to pass a handle to the notification system though about how to respond to "action mode". Ubuntu is a terrible example of Gnome 3 since Canonical has decided to do a major fork and go in their own direction. If you want to use Gnome I don't think Ubuntu is a good choice anymore.
They can force you state where you were last Saturday as well. However, that kind of information is more likely to be directly incriminating so they usually almost always combine it with an immunity statement, or a pre arranged sentence & plea. A judge can compel you to answer the Saturday question but having compelled you to answer such questions without some broad protections, often it is impossible to try you for the case.
In terms of indirect information the judge believes are not likely to be directly incrimination, like say where you went to High School the courts are more likely to compel you to answer. Access to evidence is in that bucket.
Most rights in the US are tempored and are not absolute. The 5th is very powerful in provides a lot of protection in the investigative stage. Being compelled only occurs in a court, and happens in a context where you have the ability to argue against being compelled and there good records. But ultimately if you refuse to comply with a court, that's a crime.
To give an example of this sort of thing with statements, in cases of kidnapping by family members judges have demand that those accused to kidnapping answer questions about where the children are, even though such information would tend to provide evidence for guilt. The judge believes that the compelling interest is getting the kids, not prevent the case from being compromised.
To the police yes, to the court no. You have the right to plead the 5th in court. If the court forces you to speak and it turns out they did so wrongly that will pollute the evidence.
The issue about spoliation vs. 5th amendment isn't computer specific though. The state has no interest in allowing people to perform criminal activities and maintain privacy via. the 5th amendment. The state has an interest in avoiding coerced confessions.
If you give the cops a key to open your safe, and they find your papers written in code, do you have to help them decipher the content? I don't think you have any obligation to help them with it.
If a court orders you to help them, yes you do have to help them decipher the content. You can plead the 5th but you can then be questioned about how that assistance is self incrimination and the judge gets to determine if he agrees.
It would be the prosecution's job to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was done to destroy evidence
You are dead wrong on this one. Intent to destroy to avoid court is not required for spoliation. Read the statues, they don't have to prove that. What they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that you failed to take proactive steps to preserve evidence a court was interested in.
The point of email policies is to get rid of emails before the company has any reason to suspect they are likely to be needed. So for example if an email is
generated in 2000 automatically destroyed in 2002 company becomes aware it is likely to be needed by 2004 subpoenaed in 2005
they are fine.
But if the order is generated in 2000 company becomes aware it is likely to be needed by 2002 automatically destroyed in 2004 subpoenaed in 2005
That's the whole thing: we are talking about stability and maturity. We are now in a time where desktops should strive for those qualities, and align with the server mentality.
Let me start by saying that's a more defensible position. We aren't now arguing about facts, what actually caused the Gnome committee to re-architect but a more philosophical question. I image you think stability is not a goal in and of itself but rather are concerned with switching costs. I would suspect that increases in productivity would quickly swamp any switching costs.
At the current time, the Gnome Committee believes Gnome has failed to gain the market share it should. In general most end users consider Gnome2 to be worse than either WindowsXP or OSX in terms of user interface. They see Linux as less feature rich and less well executed than proprietary desktops. Given that situation they don't believe they have maturity and stability would be a negative. The goal of the Gnome project is to maximize end user productivity.
When it's completely dead, will Gnome3 have feature parity? Nobody knows either!
Sure they do. The Gnome community publishes roadmaps well in advance. The answer to your question is no. Gnome 3 will have a different feature set than Gnome 2. The underlying applications will bill be different. Gnome is re-architecting the system keeping what worked in Gnome 2, and in other systems and discarding what didn't.
Things like unified notifications systems are a real useful purpose. I love messaging and notification on iOS, I can see the advantages and look forward to having this sort of setup for my desktop. Also things like unified training for keyboard shortcuts, creating a less mouse centric experience make sense. Moving your hands from keyboard to mouse and back is expensive.
Canonical wants to shift their user base / device base. They are looking for more of a tablet interface. They understand existing Ubuntu users on desktops aren't going to like Unity.
But if he has an expert to setup his system why not just set him up on some other Gnome 2 distribution?
Slashdot Mirror
There is a perfectly legal way to do that. The UK Foreign Secretary, William Hague writes a formal statement of repudiation and submits it to the US and the UN. After six months the treaty is nullified.
Countries aren't bound by treaties until the sun explodes.
You are an expert on your life's experience. Anything you need to look up you are not an expert on. If you want a question answered you ask the court to answer it.
It still isn't all that pervasive for most cases. Nancy the waitress is being tried for stealing $3752.49 from her employer....
Don't forget those sorts of demands create reasons to get off juries. The courts are not going to be anxious to create situations where potential jurors can walk and/or mistrial.
That's cheap. It does change things that Android is already at the JavaOS price point.
Wow. Give a hand to Android on getting to a JavaOS price point. OK your point to grandparent stands.
Pretty much Exxon makes their money selling nothing that cost over a few hundred bucks, to a huge number of people.
No the profit is on hardware. They don't make much from the app store or iTunes store yet. Longer terms as the hardware profits dry up this might become an important revenue source. Now on the iPad where the hardware profits are lower and the apps more expensive the share is much higher.
I don't know that market specifically, but most likely you are talking subsidized cost. That doesn't really mean much. The question is what does the phone retail for not what it sells for with a contract.
Excellent points. And don't forget that most Android phones have 3 names:
a) Manufacturer name
b) Advertising name
c) Carrier name
It is hard quite often to lookup these phones.
I've heard good things about the Nexus. But ultimately what end users care about is the experience as delivered. If allowing carriers choice results in a worse end user experience that's a reasonable thing to be critical of. The same way I think Microsoft deserves blame for allowing their OS to be delivered will with adware.
A fall off in margins is priced into Apple's stock. Wall Street is banking on Apple not being able to sustain margins well above industry averages over the next decade. If either:
a) The margins fall off and sales skyrocket
b) Margins don't fall off
The stock will do very well.
In the case the margins fall off it comes down to how fast.
I think in PCs the best way to understand the market is this.
Under $1k PCs Apple has almost no share
Over $1k PCs Apple has 90% share
Huh? The Miranda ruling applies to police procedures. It doesn't even address courts.
An example of a ruling regarding courts is Kastigar v. United States.
But the Gnome 3 messaging / notification system is semi interactive. What is supposed to happen is that when you hover over a notification an applications specific "action mode" occurs. In this action mode you can interact with the application in a limited and appropriate way.
For example in an IM app you can type a quick response from the messaging system you don't have to go back to the IM app.
Conversely from a music application (showing you currently playing track) you can stop, pause or skip the track without having to go to the full music application.
The application would need to pass a handle to the notification system though about how to respond to "action mode". Ubuntu is a terrible example of Gnome 3 since Canonical has decided to do a major fork and go in their own direction. If you want to use Gnome I don't think Ubuntu is a good choice anymore.
They can force you state where you were last Saturday as well. However, that kind of information is more likely to be directly incriminating so they usually almost always combine it with an immunity statement, or a pre arranged sentence & plea. A judge can compel you to answer the Saturday question but having compelled you to answer such questions without some broad protections, often it is impossible to try you for the case.
In terms of indirect information the judge believes are not likely to be directly incrimination, like say where you went to High School the courts are more likely to compel you to answer. Access to evidence is in that bucket.
Most rights in the US are tempored and are not absolute. The 5th is very powerful in provides a lot of protection in the investigative stage. Being compelled only occurs in a court, and happens in a context where you have the ability to argue against being compelled and there good records. But ultimately if you refuse to comply with a court, that's a crime.
To give an example of this sort of thing with statements, in cases of kidnapping by family members judges have demand that those accused to kidnapping answer questions about where the children are, even though such information would tend to provide evidence for guilt. The judge believes that the compelling interest is getting the kids, not prevent the case from being compromised.
To the police yes, to the court no. You have the right to plead the 5th in court. If the court forces you to speak and it turns out they did so wrongly that will pollute the evidence.
The issue about spoliation vs. 5th amendment isn't computer specific though. The state has no interest in allowing people to perform criminal activities and maintain privacy via. the 5th amendment. The state has an interest in avoiding coerced confessions.
If a court orders you to help them, yes you do have to help them decipher the content. You can plead the 5th but you can then be questioned about how that assistance is self incrimination and the judge gets to determine if he agrees.
The police do have forensic examiners.
Yes. You have a positive obligation to cooperate with the court.
You are dead wrong on this one. Intent to destroy to avoid court is not required for spoliation. Read the statues, they don't have to prove that. What they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that you failed to take proactive steps to preserve evidence a court was interested in.
The point of email policies is to get rid of emails before the company has any reason to suspect they are likely to be needed. So for example if an email is
generated in 2000
automatically destroyed in 2002
company becomes aware it is likely to be needed by 2004
subpoenaed in 2005
they are fine.
But if the order is
generated in 2000
company becomes aware it is likely to be needed by 2002
automatically destroyed in 2004
subpoenaed in 2005
they are up a creek.
Let me start by saying that's a more defensible position. We aren't now arguing about facts, what actually caused the Gnome committee to re-architect but a more philosophical question. I image you think stability is not a goal in and of itself but rather are concerned with switching costs. I would suspect that increases in productivity would quickly swamp any switching costs.
At the current time, the Gnome Committee believes Gnome has failed to gain the market share it should. In general most end users consider Gnome2 to be worse than either WindowsXP or OSX in terms of user interface. They see Linux as less feature rich and less well executed than proprietary desktops. Given that situation they don't believe they have maturity and stability would be a negative. The goal of the Gnome project is to maximize end user productivity.
Sure they do. The Gnome community publishes roadmaps well in advance. The answer to your question is no. Gnome 3 will have a different feature set than Gnome 2. The underlying applications will bill be different. Gnome is re-architecting the system keeping what worked in Gnome 2, and in other systems and discarding what didn't.
Things like unified notifications systems are a real useful purpose. I love messaging and notification on iOS, I can see the advantages and look forward to having this sort of setup for my desktop. Also things like unified training for keyboard shortcuts, creating a less mouse centric experience make sense. Moving your hands from keyboard to mouse and back is expensive.
Abandoned as the dominant UI? Pretty much happening now. A few years.
Abandoned as an option? Most of the UI's from the early 1990s are still around and X is going to be around forever. Say 30 years.
Canonical wants to shift their user base / device base. They are looking for more of a tablet interface. They understand existing Ubuntu users on desktops aren't going to like Unity.
But if he has an expert to setup his system why not just set him up on some other Gnome 2 distribution?