that you derive some holier than thou pleasure by pointing and laughing at other people's consumerism.
Presumably you don't indulge in any non-essential spending in any phase of your life, right? You live in a grass hut, drink spring water and you're nourished only by your own sense of self-satisfaction.
Different people choose to spend their money on different things. Just because someone gets a rush of anticipation at some new technical gadget doesn't mean it's ego-driven or caste-based. Just like when you buy whatever douchey shit you're into doesn't mean that you are doing it for elitist reasons.
What does make you an elitist is looking down your nose at everyone else. It also makes you a dick.
Apple DOES NOT unlock iPhones for its customers on request, they don't have the ability to do that because THEY DON'T KNOW YOUR PASSCODE OR ENCRYPTION KEY. Please try to keep up or find a different website.
But just to be clear, Apple isn't violating any laws, isn't doing anything unprecedented or even uncommon, and isn't somehow compromising the whole notion of "ownership" or whatever the fuck the OP was claiming. Right? Right. Okay, good.
There are good security reasons to detect whether the fingerprint scanner has been tampered with--the reasons are pretty fucking obvious. There is no evidence to suggest that Apple was intentionally trying to prevent repair. If they wanted to do that then they would figure out how to brick devices when the battery was swapped or the screen replaced--both of which are far more common than replacing the fingerprint sensor.
The user chose to upgrade his software, clicked through the terms and conditions and picked up the new features and security updates. One of the security updates identified that the finger print sensor had been tampered with and that lead to problems. In all likelihood Apple just never tested the update on devices that had been "repaired" in an unauthorized way.
I suspect Apple will figure out a way to unbrick the devices and let people continue using their phone, with the fingerprint sensor disabled.
There was no pardon, pardons are for crimes. This was the one agency exercising its perogative to override another agency under the President's authority. The reason for the veto was that the patents in question were part of an industry standard and thus under FRAND terms. Samsung was violating those FRAND conditions in an effort to squeeze Apple.
The whole question here is whether the existence of tamper-resistance calls into question the whole notion of ownership. Does the existence of tamper-resistance mean that you effectively don't own the product? I claim that the two concepts are not related. Ownership has never granted you any guarantees that a product will continue to function correctly if you tamper with it.
BTW: Many modern cars certainly have "limp home" modes invoked under various conditions for both safety and emissions control reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_throttle_control
For cars they had to pass special laws governing "Right to Repair", no such laws exist for smartphones nor for most consumer electronics. Third party repair shops exist for some electronics & appliances (even for Apple products), but they are 'authorized' repair shops.
Tamper resistance wasn't invented by Apple, it's common and often done for good reasons (safety, laws, security)--of course it is frequently abused as a form of revenue protection. One thing we can absolutely say for certain is that Apple didn't invent it and there is ample precedent here.
The real problem here are "outrage monkeys". Please go hurl your feces somewhere else.
Here's your link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamper_resistance
Just as has happened thousands of times before. They didn't sucker anyone into getting their iPhones repaired at an unauthorized dealer just so they could brick it. There's a far simpler explanation: Apple just didn't test the update on any phones which had undergone unauthorized service. Why would they?
They also didn't test the OS update on phones which has be soaked in kerosene for an hour, so sure it's possible that an "OS update" might cause a phone to explode.
What's it like to be outraged all the time? Seems pretty horrible.
Ownership means you have every right to tamper with something. It DOES NOT mean that you have any guarantees that the hardware will continue to work if you do so. It never has, EVER, in the history of mankind, EVER meant that.
Microwaves and other electronics will frequently have tamper avoidance measures built into them for safety reasons--does that mean you don't own your microwave? An emissions control system might disable a car or generator if it discovers it's been tampered with, does that mean you don't own your car?
A biometric sensor may be tamper-proofed for security reasons (which is exactly what happened here)--doesn't mean that you don't own it.
Say I go to an unauthorized service provider to get my car fixed. They swap out my engine with one that is so flaky and fragile that it explodes if you change the ignition timings.
Then I go to my original dealer and ask for them to update my software. The software update from my dealer changes the ignition timings because they've found more efficient timings.. The software update works fine with the original engine, but with the new engine it explodes.
Who's fault is it?
I'll give you a hint, at some point along the way you signed a piece of paper that says that the manufacturer only covers problems with their design or manufacturing.
Companies can't possibly be expected to test their software will all possible configurations of third-party modifications.
You own the hardware and you can do whatever you want to it--but you are in no way entitled to have the original manufacturer support your efforts to make mods to the hardware or to support you when you've violated the terms of the warranty.
If you drop it and then take it to an unauthorized service vendor and they damage it--then you're on your own.
BTW: you're also not required to take OS updates, you have to click through a lot of legalese in order to get one. In this case the customer chose to take an OS update, unaware that the new OS detected a security violation that exposed their un-sanctioned repair work.
This is how things have always worked with any kind of device ever sold before in the history of mankind. The problem is that you're an idiot.
it was stupid to operate one's emails like that, but it wasn't criminal. This is [yet another] partisan witch hunt.
Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate in the race. She's smart, she's a hard-worker, her policies align with mine. That's why I'm voting for her.
Donald Trump is an insane, impulsive narcissist. Ted Cruz is a fanatic intent on shutting down the government. Bernie Sanders is well-meaning but naive, more importantly he is the best chance for a Trump or Cruz to become president.
Slashdot Mirror
Anything still working will be resold into secondary markets--everything else is recycled as best as possible.
If you think about it, that might explain why everyone on Earth doesn't buy exactly the same things you buy and live exactly the same as how you live.
that you derive some holier than thou pleasure by pointing and laughing at other people's consumerism.
Presumably you don't indulge in any non-essential spending in any phase of your life, right? You live in a grass hut, drink spring water and you're nourished only by your own sense of self-satisfaction.
Different people choose to spend their money on different things. Just because someone gets a rush of anticipation at some new technical gadget doesn't mean it's ego-driven or caste-based. Just like when you buy whatever douchey shit you're into doesn't mean that you are doing it for elitist reasons.
What does make you an elitist is looking down your nose at everyone else. It also makes you a dick.
Apple is giving you 24 equal, INTEREST-free payments. They aren't charging you 100% interest as you claim, they are charging you 0% interest.
That makes you 100% a liar.
don't have such strong opinions on a technology.
Apple DOES NOT unlock iPhones for its customers on request, they don't have the ability to do that because THEY DON'T KNOW YOUR PASSCODE OR ENCRYPTION KEY. Please try to keep up or find a different website.
But just to be clear, Apple isn't violating any laws, isn't doing anything unprecedented or even uncommon, and isn't somehow compromising the whole notion of "ownership" or whatever the fuck the OP was claiming. Right? Right. Okay, good.
There are good security reasons to detect whether the fingerprint scanner has been tampered with--the reasons are pretty fucking obvious. There is no evidence to suggest that Apple was intentionally trying to prevent repair. If they wanted to do that then they would figure out how to brick devices when the battery was swapped or the screen replaced--both of which are far more common than replacing the fingerprint sensor.
The user chose to upgrade his software, clicked through the terms and conditions and picked up the new features and security updates. One of the security updates identified that the finger print sensor had been tampered with and that lead to problems. In all likelihood Apple just never tested the update on devices that had been "repaired" in an unauthorized way.
I suspect Apple will figure out a way to unbrick the devices and let people continue using their phone, with the fingerprint sensor disabled.
There was no pardon, pardons are for crimes. This was the one agency exercising its perogative to override another agency under the President's authority. The reason for the veto was that the patents in question were part of an industry standard and thus under FRAND terms. Samsung was violating those FRAND conditions in an effort to squeeze Apple.
The whole question here is whether the existence of tamper-resistance calls into question the whole notion of ownership. Does the existence of tamper-resistance mean that you effectively don't own the product? I claim that the two concepts are not related. Ownership has never granted you any guarantees that a product will continue to function correctly if you tamper with it.
BTW: Many modern cars certainly have "limp home" modes invoked under various conditions for both safety and emissions control reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_throttle_control
For cars they had to pass special laws governing "Right to Repair", no such laws exist for smartphones nor for most consumer electronics. Third party repair shops exist for some electronics & appliances (even for Apple products), but they are 'authorized' repair shops.
Tamper resistance wasn't invented by Apple, it's common and often done for good reasons (safety, laws, security)--of course it is frequently abused as a form of revenue protection. One thing we can absolutely say for certain is that Apple didn't invent it and there is ample precedent here.
The real problem here are "outrage monkeys". Please go hurl your feces somewhere else.
Here's your link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamper_resistance
Problem solved.
Just as has happened thousands of times before. They didn't sucker anyone into getting their iPhones repaired at an unauthorized dealer just so they could brick it. There's a far simpler explanation: Apple just didn't test the update on any phones which had undergone unauthorized service. Why would they?
They also didn't test the OS update on phones which has be soaked in kerosene for an hour, so sure it's possible that an "OS update" might cause a phone to explode.
What's it like to be outraged all the time? Seems pretty horrible.
Ownership means you have every right to tamper with something. It DOES NOT mean that you have any guarantees that the hardware will continue to work if you do so. It never has, EVER, in the history of mankind, EVER meant that.
Microwaves and other electronics will frequently have tamper avoidance measures built into them for safety reasons--does that mean you don't own your microwave? An emissions control system might disable a car or generator if it discovers it's been tampered with, does that mean you don't own your car?
A biometric sensor may be tamper-proofed for security reasons (which is exactly what happened here)--doesn't mean that you don't own it.
Moron.
Say I go to an unauthorized service provider to get my car fixed. They swap out my engine with one that is so flaky and fragile that it explodes if you change the ignition timings.
Then I go to my original dealer and ask for them to update my software. The software update from my dealer changes the ignition timings because they've found more efficient timings.. The software update works fine with the original engine, but with the new engine it explodes.
Who's fault is it?
I'll give you a hint, at some point along the way you signed a piece of paper that says that the manufacturer only covers problems with their design or manufacturing.
Companies can't possibly be expected to test their software will all possible configurations of third-party modifications.
You own the hardware and you can do whatever you want to it--but you are in no way entitled to have the original manufacturer support your efforts to make mods to the hardware or to support you when you've violated the terms of the warranty.
If you drop it and then take it to an unauthorized service vendor and they damage it--then you're on your own.
BTW: you're also not required to take OS updates, you have to click through a lot of legalese in order to get one. In this case the customer chose to take an OS update, unaware that the new OS detected a security violation that exposed their un-sanctioned repair work.
This is how things have always worked with any kind of device ever sold before in the history of mankind. The problem is that you're an idiot.
This was a case of an un-authorized service which creates a security hole.
nt
Any she has good policy positions and she'll nominate good judges.
That's why I'm voting for her. Why is it so hard to believe that people genuinely want to vote for the most qualified candidate on the ballot?
because he is batshit fucking insane. This isn't a game, you dumb fuck, this guy will have access to nuclear weapons.
it was stupid to operate one's emails like that, but it wasn't criminal. This is [yet another] partisan witch hunt.
Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate in the race. She's smart, she's a hard-worker, her policies align with mine. That's why I'm voting for her.
Donald Trump is an insane, impulsive narcissist. Ted Cruz is a fanatic intent on shutting down the government. Bernie Sanders is well-meaning but naive, more importantly he is the best chance for a Trump or Cruz to become president.
It's not super clear what you're yelling about.
Wolfram Language is far more powerful than any language you've ever used. Try it.
In1> PrimeQ[2^74207281-1]
Now we wait.