It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.
So spying on innocent US citizens would be totally unacceptable, but it's okay to target all non-US citizens? Why? How about just stop spying on civilians in general? It's not "wrong" only when it's done to Americans.
Exactly! The "server" clause is so broad that pretty much every customer is violating it, wittingly or not. Almost every computer sold today comes with an operating system (Windows) and some installed applications (e.g. Skype, Spotify, Google Talk) which all listen on open ports.
It's about time they removed that useless clause, unless they want to keep it as a discretionary catch-all they can use to kick anybody at will.
"there, at worst it's an attempt to control ownership which no law can accomplish: laws can only regulate legal commerce"
This logic seems to assume that most of the illegally held guns in the US come from "pure illegal" sources. However, many people come to hold guns obtained from friends and family, originally through some legal channel.
The problem with there being so many guns available _legally_ is that they often don't stay with the responsible gun owner; they can so easily end up in the hands of a 17 year old thug who knows and cares about little.
If you limit the number of legally obtainable weapons, you limit the number available to enter illegal circulation.
Furthermore, you assume that outlaws and gangsters with illegally-obtained guns are the main cause of gun crime. I'm not sure if this is true. The ATF's (old) statistics showed that 80% of inmates with guns had gotten them from "family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source", which doesn't shed much light on things, since we need to know how many came from "original" illegal sources.
Anyway, while I do think stricter gun laws would be a step forward, I do NOT think it makes any sense whatsoever to "regulate" 3D printers, whatever that even means. Why not regulate chisels, saws, drills, basic electronics and so forth, since they _could_ be used to construct weapons and bombs? It makes no sense. Guns are designed for killing. Printers are designed for creating - anything, not guns.
So why don't they block older versions of their operating systems when they have vulnerabilities? That one in iOS where you could root the device from a website was pretty severe, seems if their goal is protecting the user from malicious software they probably should have blocked that from the app store and other services until the users updated.
Because people still run those operating systems, and there are good reasons why they don't want to, or can't "upgrade" to the next version.
1. They may need to run software which is currently incompatible with newer versions of the OS.
2. Apple charges money for their somewhat incremental upgrades. You're suggesting that they automatically "block" your OS until you pay them money for the newer version? Sounds like extortion... no thanks. This is not to say that I think it'd be okay to silently block Java just because it is free.
3. Worse still, Apple go out of their way to make new OS releases incompatible with even a four or five year old perfectly-functional Macbook.
The same policy of planned obsolescence applies with iOS. My trusty iPod Touch can't use the latest iOS and won't work with the new version of iTunes... why? I don't know. But my iPhone 5 won't work with the older version of iTunes.
So they've actually made it so that you can't even use a 4 year old iPod Touch and a new iPhone on the same computer. Amazing.
Slashdot Mirror
the basic nature of woman is of a whore that is why rich and-or famous men always have arm candy
Wow. Thanks for letting us know that you have serious problems and that the rest of your post can be safely ignored as the ravings of a madman.
So spying on innocent US citizens would be totally unacceptable, but it's okay to target all non-US citizens? Why? How about just stop spying on civilians in general? It's not "wrong" only when it's done to Americans.
Exactly! The "server" clause is so broad that pretty much every customer is violating it, wittingly or not. Almost every computer sold today comes with an operating system (Windows) and some installed applications (e.g. Skype, Spotify, Google Talk) which all listen on open ports. It's about time they removed that useless clause, unless they want to keep it as a discretionary catch-all they can use to kick anybody at will.
"there, at worst it's an attempt to control ownership which no law can accomplish: laws can only regulate legal commerce"
This logic seems to assume that most of the illegally held guns in the US come from "pure illegal" sources. However, many people come to hold guns obtained from friends and family, originally through some legal channel.
The problem with there being so many guns available _legally_ is that they often don't stay with the responsible gun owner; they can so easily end up in the hands of a 17 year old thug who knows and cares about little.
If you limit the number of legally obtainable weapons, you limit the number available to enter illegal circulation.
Furthermore, you assume that outlaws and gangsters with illegally-obtained guns are the main cause of gun crime. I'm not sure if this is true. The ATF's (old) statistics showed that 80% of inmates with guns had gotten them from "family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source", which doesn't shed much light on things, since we need to know how many came from "original" illegal sources.
Anyway, while I do think stricter gun laws would be a step forward, I do NOT think it makes any sense whatsoever to "regulate" 3D printers, whatever that even means. Why not regulate chisels, saws, drills, basic electronics and so forth, since they _could_ be used to construct weapons and bombs? It makes no sense. Guns are designed for killing. Printers are designed for creating - anything, not guns.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
No one will bother to convert that to characters to send you e-mail.
They might point out that it's missing a "1101" at the end, though.
So why don't they block older versions of their operating systems when they have vulnerabilities? That one in iOS where you could root the device from a website was pretty severe, seems if their goal is protecting the user from malicious software they probably should have blocked that from the app store and other services until the users updated.
Because people still run those operating systems, and there are good reasons why they don't want to, or can't "upgrade" to the next version.
1. They may need to run software which is currently incompatible with newer versions of the OS.
2. Apple charges money for their somewhat incremental upgrades. You're suggesting that they automatically "block" your OS until you pay them money for the newer version? Sounds like extortion... no thanks. This is not to say that I think it'd be okay to silently block Java just because it is free.
3. Worse still, Apple go out of their way to make new OS releases incompatible with even a four or five year old perfectly-functional Macbook.
The same policy of planned obsolescence applies with iOS. My trusty iPod Touch can't use the latest iOS and won't work with the new version of iTunes... why? I don't know. But my iPhone 5 won't work with the older version of iTunes.
So they've actually made it so that you can't even use a 4 year old iPod Touch and a new iPhone on the same computer. Amazing.