Is that a feature of the phone, or are you using an app to detect that? I played with AIMSICD for awhile, but I'm not sure it did anything other than drain the battery.
Twitter can refuse to provide service for the opposition (delete every post) if it choose to do so, and there ain't shit any one can do about it.
Wouldn't that be true even without Citizens United? The equal time rule only applies to radio and television as far as I'm aware; no one is guaranteed a platform to speak on Twitter. I'm the last person to defend the Citizens United ruling but it seems irrelevant here.
Out of curiosity, if you're willing to divulge, was there a decent cost savings in ditching the video production? I never watched any of them, not really my taste, seems like they were generally disliked but I wonder whether they were an albatross or just unpopular. I do hope Rob is still in the fabric of the site somewhere. Thanks for your participation and responsiveness here!
It absolutely blows my mind that the online advertisers haven't figured out how to defeat ad-blocking. It's actually retarded simple to do. All the advertisers have to do is proxy their ads through the site the users are trying to access.
It's dead simple, but they won't do it, because then they would be paying for the bandwidth to serve all those ads! They'd prefer to keep offloading that expense.
Turns out many of the verboten sites are using cloud-based hosting and CDNs. You can't block those IPs without affecting (possibly many) legitimate sites. I'm assuming the "Host:" HTTP header must be part of the encrypted traffic, and therefore impossible to filter against.
The Democrats are the one who try to capitalize on the emotional response.
The Democrats aren't the ones telling me that Mexicans are rapists, Muslims are going to blow me up, and gay marriage is a slippery slope to bestiality.
My objection to using my fingerprints as a means of authentication is that they're permanent and irrevocable. If someone gets ahold of my passwords, I can change them. My fingerprints, not so much.
I don't think the FBI is picking this fight because they need information about the San Bernardino shooter. They're making a scene because they want backdoors to all encryption.
Right. Seems like they picked this case because they don't anticipate either the judicial branch or the public siding with Apple against a terr'ist. Once they have precedent that Apple can be compelled to provide this service, they'll start using it to unlock phones of suspected marijuana dealers, etc. Same as the USA PATRIOT act, it was pushed through under the guise of fighting terrorism but is mostly used for drug cases instead.
You realize that this is one issue where nearly all the Republican and Democrat politicians agree?
I get worried when that happens, because we wind up with shit like the USA PATRIOT act. You know, the legislation granting the government sweeping new powers that would only be used against terrorists, but which in practice are used for narcotics cases 90% of the time. When something has broad support from both sides of the aisle, that's usually a bad sign.
Wife can already do that if she's in the truck. Or did you mean the wife can start texting and calling him, distracting him even more than he already is?
This entire court case appears to be a case of feigning helplessness for the sake of... lulling the people on that phone in to false sense of security?
I agree it's feigned helplessness, but I disagree on the end game. I think it's an attempt to sway the public into supporting backdoors.
This pair was posting on Facebook for heaven's sake. The Paris attackers were communicating over standard SMS. I simply don't believe there's anything on this iPhone that law enforcement doesn't already have, or can't get either through normal legal channels like subpoenas to the carrier and social media companies, or through questionable channels like NSA.
It's not about getting whatever's on this specific phone. It's about terrorizing Americans into accepting government backdoors.
Presumably they want info on who they where talking to. If the shooters had accomplices, the FBI wants to know who they are.
If only we had an agency who is (lawfully or otherwise) intercepting every electronic signal known to mankind, who could be consulted when national security concerns arise...
Would people be okay with the idea of Exxon helping to design AP Environmental Science curriculum? Should criminal justice coursework be overseen by Smith and Wesson? Corporate sponsors don't belong in these roles but for some reason everyone throws caution to the wind when they hear "computer."
I thought Google was out and Yahoo was the new benefactor/overlord. The Mozilla Foundation's most recent public financials are for 2014 so it's hard to tell for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
'Your Fired'
Maybe getting the English teacher fired wasn't such a great idea...
Is that a feature of the phone, or are you using an app to detect that? I played with AIMSICD for awhile, but I'm not sure it did anything other than drain the battery.
Twitter can refuse to provide service for the opposition (delete every post) if it choose to do so, and there ain't shit any one can do about it.
Wouldn't that be true even without Citizens United? The equal time rule only applies to radio and television as far as I'm aware; no one is guaranteed a platform to speak on Twitter. I'm the last person to defend the Citizens United ruling but it seems irrelevant here.
"You can't run your ship into an iceberg anymore, the radar is just too good," he said. "It would have to manned by a complete idiot."
It would have to manned indeed. Got a chuckle out of that one.
Cool, thanks.
Out of curiosity, if you're willing to divulge, was there a decent cost savings in ditching the video production? I never watched any of them, not really my taste, seems like they were generally disliked but I wonder whether they were an albatross or just unpopular. I do hope Rob is still in the fabric of the site somewhere. Thanks for your participation and responsiveness here!
Is "Google dork" still a term? Anyway, here's a search that pertains to the second article, there are a few still out there.
Did you read the summary? This is not complicated. Change the settings.
And how long before a "bug" resets your changes back to what Microsoft prefers?
It absolutely blows my mind that the online advertisers haven't figured out how to defeat ad-blocking. It's actually retarded simple to do. All the advertisers have to do is proxy their ads through the site the users are trying to access.
It's dead simple, but they won't do it, because then they would be paying for the bandwidth to serve all those ads! They'd prefer to keep offloading that expense.
who is 'you' in this case? Apple? The programmers? Tim Cook?
You could always ask Qwest's former CEO his opinion.
Turns out many of the verboten sites are using cloud-based hosting and CDNs. You can't block those IPs without affecting (possibly many) legitimate sites. I'm assuming the "Host:" HTTP header must be part of the encrypted traffic, and therefore impossible to filter against.
The Democrats are the one who try to capitalize on the emotional response.
The Democrats aren't the ones telling me that Mexicans are rapists, Muslims are going to blow me up, and gay marriage is a slippery slope to bestiality.
My objection to using my fingerprints as a means of authentication is that they're permanent and irrevocable. If someone gets ahold of my passwords, I can change them. My fingerprints, not so much.
I don't think the FBI is picking this fight because they need information about the San Bernardino shooter. They're making a scene because they want backdoors to all encryption.
Right. Seems like they picked this case because they don't anticipate either the judicial branch or the public siding with Apple against a terr'ist. Once they have precedent that Apple can be compelled to provide this service, they'll start using it to unlock phones of suspected marijuana dealers, etc. Same as the USA PATRIOT act, it was pushed through under the guise of fighting terrorism but is mostly used for drug cases instead.
So he had an accomplice of some type?
Yes, his employer's IT department.
You realize that this is one issue where nearly all the Republican and Democrat politicians agree?
I get worried when that happens, because we wind up with shit like the USA PATRIOT act. You know, the legislation granting the government sweeping new powers that would only be used against terrorists, but which in practice are used for narcotics cases 90% of the time. When something has broad support from both sides of the aisle, that's usually a bad sign.
Wife can already do that if she's in the truck. Or did you mean the wife can start texting and calling him, distracting him even more than he already is?
This entire court case appears to be a case of feigning helplessness for the sake of ... lulling the people on that phone in to false sense of security?
I agree it's feigned helplessness, but I disagree on the end game. I think it's an attempt to sway the public into supporting backdoors.
This pair was posting on Facebook for heaven's sake. The Paris attackers were communicating over standard SMS. I simply don't believe there's anything on this iPhone that law enforcement doesn't already have, or can't get either through normal legal channels like subpoenas to the carrier and social media companies, or through questionable channels like NSA.
It's not about getting whatever's on this specific phone. It's about terrorizing Americans into accepting government backdoors.
Check again, they showed up sometime last night.
glibc.x86_64 2.12-1.166.el6_7.7
glibc-common.x86_64 2.12-1.166.el6_7.7
glibc-devel.x86_64 2.12-1.166.el6_7.7
glibc-headers.x86_64 2.12-1.166.el6_7.7
Presumably they want info on who they where talking to. If the shooters had accomplices, the FBI wants to know who they are.
If only we had an agency who is (lawfully or otherwise) intercepting every electronic signal known to mankind, who could be consulted when national security concerns arise...
I dunno. If Kanye isn't making his own Tweets, he ought to fire whoever he has doing it for him.
Would people be okay with the idea of Exxon helping to design AP Environmental Science curriculum? Should criminal justice coursework be overseen by Smith and Wesson? Corporate sponsors don't belong in these roles but for some reason everyone throws caution to the wind when they hear "computer."
I never knew Juggalos were so concerned with positioning.
I thought Google was out and Yahoo was the new benefactor/overlord. The Mozilla Foundation's most recent public financials are for 2014 so it's hard to tell for sure.
FYI, Twitter restored API access to Politwoops, and that site is back online.