However, Techdirt noticed that the photos had copyright notices on them, and started a discussion over who actually held the copyright in question, noting that, if anyone did, the monkeys had the best claim, and certainly not the photographer.
Why the monkeys and not the camera sensor? Or the chip in the camera that processed the image?
Or maybe ownership is a human concept -- one we invented full cloth -- and one that monkeys and inanimate objects do not qualify for.
I assume the police would either bring her to the evidence room and tell her to enter the passphrase, or they would simply demand that she deliver an un-encrypted copy of the drive. Either way they are forcing her to give up evidence that may be used to incriminate. This seems to be a seriously frightening precedent to set.
This happens all the time with physical evidence. The privilege is against testimony that would incriminate, not physical objects and other tangible evidence. No court has ever held that the 5A protects you against turning over evidence that the police can prove exists.
Your murder example is inapt. The police know that there are files in that encrypted drive and they have very good probable cause to believe that they are relevant to the ongoing criminal investigation. What would you say if those accused to tax evasion claimed a right to withhold records of their business dealings on the grounds that it would be self-incriminating?
Firefox's release schedule isn't any more "rapid" than it was before just because they now change major version number instead. It's just taking away the real problem and trying to be push your software to the version numbers that long term projects like IE and Opera have got over the years. Same problem with Chrome.
Tell that to an addon developer, where the churn of compatibility-breaking changes (many for no apparent reason) is causing a real headache.
There is a promised SDK to land sometime this summer. We'll see if Mozilla can deliver a stable API for more than a few months.
Yes, short term France will make a lot of money, unless there is a nuclear accident in France. Long term, Germany will be able to export more green tech.
And long term they are developing the technological and industrial economies of scale required to corner the market for nuclear power. I'd bet on that sooner than I would bet on unproven technology any day.
In the meantime, their consumers don't get screwed over with higher prices for power either. Green tech sounds nice until you realize it means sticking the common man with twice the bill each month (although it's not like the politicians that vote for it care, since they can easily afford the feel-good luxury).
Since the first halt, Germany became a net power importer from France -- whereas it used to be the other way around. And of course France generates 80% of its power from nuclear. So yeah, they aren't really doing anything except shuffling the plants around.
France is going to make out pretty well from all this, probably going to end up as the major electricity producer on the continent. They are already reaping major economies of scale, having the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing electricity prices in Europe.
there's really only a handful of distros I'd consider to be in the same category as Ubuntu for general ease of installation/use
Try typing in that forty digit key with 1s and ls and 0s and Os. And sit there having to click "yes" or "no" every two minutes for a solid hour -- with a whole lot of reboots. Then installing every application you'll need to do any actual work.
I don't think you understand the difference between difficult and merely tedious. The former involves some sort of unknowns that need to be figured out and overcome before the task is over -- the latter involves doing something you know how to do but either many times or with a lot of waiting.
This is one thing that I think separates the nerds from regular people -- a regular person will instantly pick the grind-it-out way to accomplish something (think cutting and pasting lots of excel cells) because they are confident that they know how to do it that way and they are assured a path to success, even if it's a repetitive one. Meanwhile, when a technical person says "Learn how to script it" they see a big question mark -- they don't know how and, more importantly, they don't know that they will be able to deliver the results.
So yeah, typing in a license key and clicking NEXT a few dozen or hundred times sounds tedious but it's definitely not difficult.
There is no obscenity exemption in the Constitution. I've looked. The Supreme Court invented the obscenity exemption. Only Congress is supposed to have the power to create law, and they may only modify the Constitution after ratification by the states. The Miller test hasn't passed any of these hurdles so it is quite plainly unconstitutional.
Nor was there ever claimed to be. The "exception" is that not everything that we would like to describe as "speech" that is protected by the First Amendment. Historically, obscene material of no redeeming social value was not considered "speech" at all and Congress and the States can restrict it at will, modulo their other limitations. Now, I don't like this state of affairs one bit, not the idea that obscenity isn't speech and definitely not the idea that we should look to history to decide the scope of the meaning of the words in our Bill of Rights.
Still, your complaint here is like me claiming that you cannot punish me for littering on the road because it's speech and that's protected by the 1A which has no littering exception. Surely you would respond speeding isn't speech and there's no exception at all -- and you would be right. So the upshot of the debate is that before we figure out whether there's an exception or not, we have to decide whether littering (or obscenity) even fall under the protected category in the first place. The framework for figuring out how to classify things as speech or not-speech has to come from somewhere. The Court said it comes from historical understanding, maybe you have a different idea of where it ought to come from and how it ought to work, but in the end there's gotta be some process for making that decision.
I want to reiterate that I don't approve of the way the doctrine works now but at least I can claim that I understand it instead of claiming some non-existent "obscenity exception". Obscenity was never protected and no exception from any protection was ever made because, obviously, none was ever needed.
Even if I have appropriate legal authority to repossess a car, I can still be held criminally liable if I do so with someone's child in the back seat. This is basically the equivalent, only with several thousand people's children in the back seat.
In the sense that a child is equivalent to an inanimate object, sure.
This is why the FBI agents involved should be proper computer specialists who are trained in how to clone the data, and should perform the cloning themselves. What you're giving isn't an argument. It's an excuse for lack of training.
Which is exactly what they do -- seized computers are cloned and read-only copies made in a controlled facility in a well-documented way that preserves the chain of evidence for trial.
I think it's time to hold the FBI to the same standards that they would hold the rest of us. If I went in waving a gun around and demanding to walk away with somebody else's server, they'd throw my ass in jail.
Yeah, because you didn't go to a neutral magistrate and get a search warrant based on a sworn affidavit. There's a difference between saying the FBI should follow the law (and, if there's any indication they didn't get a warrant or the application was defective, it's possible but not mentioned in TFA) and saying that there should effectively be no law enforcement on private property at all.
Heck, the local police here barge into private homes with guns fairly often. About 50% of calls to a home (I worked a bit of IT there a while back and would peruse the logs) were because some guy decided to whale on his wife a little bit or (rarely) vice versa. You wouldn't seriously say that they should face the same standards that would hold me if I barged into someone's house with a gun right?
If they want access to a particular client's content, they can go through the same process as a DMCA takedown request or a backup request would. They make a request, the company yanks that customer's access, then clones that customer's data onto a new drive, then hands them the drive.
Evidence in criminal investigations does not need to be seized voluntarily, that's the entire point of a warrant. What's more, your proposed scheme puts them at the mercy of a hosting company that might be conspiring with the suspects. There's no reason to trust the hosting company not to wipe the actual customer disks and give you some random junk instead.
What's more, if there is incriminating evidence on there and it comes to trial and some FBI agent has to testify about the chain of evidence for some particular files found on a hard drive, defense counsel is going to rip him to shreds if anyone other than a sworn officer or a federal employee so much as touched that drive. "The hosting company cloned it for me" isn't remotely going to fly -- heck it probably won't even get to the jury because it's so lacking in the indicia of reliability.
How about hiring someone who actually has some idea about security. THAT is supporting stockholders.
Short term, he might have a crapload of work to do to implement best practices, clear out infected machines, train users on password complexity all while being attacked and losing business due to unavailability. Shareholders would not appreciate that, nor would any sensible security consultant promise they can dig you out of an attack as it is occurring.
It might be best to pay them for short term protection and using that breathing space to harden up so the next time they ask, you are prepared.
Languages are not slow. Algorithms are slow. Execution environments are slow. There is nothing fundamental about JavaScript that makes it slow. Until recently, browsers executed it inefficiently and with few optimizations.
Languages impose constraints that require the execution environment to do more work for a given algorithm written in one language rather than another. Consider the following algorithm in C:
const int N = 1000000; int someNumbers[N] = GetArrayOfIntsWithLength(N); int sum = 0; for(int i = 0; i \LessThan N; ++i)
sum += i;
If you implement this in Java instead of C, it turns out that the call to operator[] must, according to the language constraints, check to see if the value is within the range [0,size) for that array. The JVM may not skip that check and still be compliant Java. So in the end, the algorithm cannot really run as fast on Java because the are simply more operations to be done (to wit, checking that (i > 0 && i \LessThan N) must be done once per iteration.
Now that's not much a slowdown but let's suppose we go a further level up and write it in python (trick question, python already has a 'sum' builtin, also that builtin effectively uses the C version) then it becomes even slower. Each time through the loop, the interpreter must check the types on both sides of the '+=' to make sure they are still ints. Why? Because I can override the int::operator-left-addition to return a string. Now we look up int::operator-left-addition(int) and call that function, passing the two references. That function 'unboxes' the ints (copies them from the heap onto the stack), performs the addition and then creates a new int object on the heap to store the result. Why a new object, because ints in Python are absolutely immutable -- in python, A += B is actually semantic sugar for A = A + B. After we are done with this reference, the old 'sum' object has its reference count decremented and is garbage collected, releasing the memory it held on the heap.
So by the time you are done adding up your numbers in Python, the interpreter has done a massive amount of work that the C version didn't, through no fault of the algorithm and only because of language design choices. Optimizing around those choices is a lot harder than writing a language optimizing for speed in the first instance. On the other hand, I love Python and use it extensively where I think it's appropriate, which is for many non-performance intensive tasks.
Languages are not slow. Algorithms are slow. Execution environments are slow. There is nothing fundamental about JavaScript that makes it slow. Until recently, browsers executed it inefficiently and with few optimizations.
Languages impose constraints that require the execution environment to do more work for a given algorithm written in one language rather than another. Consider the following algorithm in C:
const int N = 1000000; int someNumbers[N] = GetArrayOfIntsWithLength(N); int sum = 0; for(int i = 0; i
If you implement this in Java instead of C, it turns out that the call to operator[] must, according to the language constraints, check to see if the value is within the range [0,size) for that array. The JVM may not skip that check and still be compliant Java. So in the end, the algorithm cannot really run as fast on Java because the are simply more operations to be done (to wit, checking that (i > 0 && i absolutely immutable, it has to create a new int for 'sum' whose reference is then assigned to 'sum'. This causes the old object to be dereffed and garbage collected.
So by the time you are done adding up your numbers in Python, the interpreter has done a massive amount of work that the C version didn't, through no fault of the algorithm and only because of language design choices.
It's more like "no longer agonizingly slow" due to herculean (and well-appreciated) efforts to optimize a language that was just not written for speed. You might as well say you upped the voltage to your Prius and say now it's a "super-fast hybrid" -- people that prioritize speed don't buy hybrids and people that buy hybrids obviously didn't consider speed to be a priority.
This is not a criticism, it's just a statement of fact. Even the fastest javascript engines don't even remotely compete with modern interpreted languages (Java, C#), let alone actual bare-metal code (C and friends). Both have their place depending on what you are doing. Having a natively written plugin handle MP3 decoding with a well-defined API seems to me far more logical than expending effort to write it in javascript, especially when it doesn't even run across all browsers yet.
Then again, that's just my $0.02, and as much as I don't think it's a great use of effort, it's damn cool!
Camera-disabling sensors and signaling for everyone! Apple might win a court case on distributing the devices but a PDF of the plans and some software isn't really injunction-able.
I don't see any reason not to put one of these on my house, car, bike and sweater either. It's the ultimate in privacy!
... so yeah, not really comparable. Even if Google Market had rules as strict as the iTunes store, it would still be fine with me because the user ultimately has control over what is installed. Google is free to provide a "protected space" (whether or not it's a good idea is a different story) if they want to -- users that want to install other apps are free to do so.
When a girl walks in with an itty-bitty waist and a round thing in your face you get vital evolutionary information that acts as a fairly accurate indicator of overall health.
My anaconda don't want none unless you have a high likelihood of producing healthy offspring with a minimal chance of genetic disabilities, hun.
My homeboys tried to warn me, but that butt you got makes me so confident of your current well-being and future child-rearing potential
So ladies (yeah!) ladies (yeah!) You wanna advertise fertility? (hell yeah!) Then turn around, stick it out, even other women have to admit that you appear to have the necessary physical attributes to produce many healthy offspring.
Because if there is a crash, your handheld device is going to turn into a flying projectile and womp someone else in the back of the head. In fact, FAA regulations state that all items must be stowed at takeoff and landing for this precise reason -- just because it's handheld now doesn't mean you'll continue to hold on to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot Monday: Anonymous/Wikileaks is going to expose and bring down the corrupt US government.
Slashdot Thursday: How dare the Senate consider whether Anon/WL is a threat to the US government?!
However, Techdirt noticed that the photos had copyright notices on them, and started a discussion over who actually held the copyright in question, noting that, if anyone did, the monkeys had the best claim, and certainly not the photographer.
Why the monkeys and not the camera sensor? Or the chip in the camera that processed the image?
Or maybe ownership is a human concept -- one we invented full cloth -- and one that monkeys and inanimate objects do not qualify for.
I assume the police would either bring her to the evidence room and tell her to enter the passphrase, or they would simply demand that she deliver an un-encrypted copy of the drive. Either way they are forcing her to give up evidence that may be used to incriminate. This seems to be a seriously frightening precedent to set.
This happens all the time with physical evidence. The privilege is against testimony that would incriminate, not physical objects and other tangible evidence. No court has ever held that the 5A protects you against turning over evidence that the police can prove exists.
Your murder example is inapt. The police know that there are files in that encrypted drive and they have very good probable cause to believe that they are relevant to the ongoing criminal investigation. What would you say if those accused to tax evasion claimed a right to withhold records of their business dealings on the grounds that it would be self-incriminating?
Not only does it meat the requiments of a strong password. Your pass-phrase WOULD be incriminating evidence, and they cannot get you to reveal it.
They aren't asking you to reveal it, only to use it to provide the unencrypted data to which they (I hope) have a legitimate reason to demand.
Firefox's release schedule isn't any more "rapid" than it was before just because they now change major version number instead. It's just taking away the real problem and trying to be push your software to the version numbers that long term projects like IE and Opera have got over the years. Same problem with Chrome.
Tell that to an addon developer, where the churn of compatibility-breaking changes (many for no apparent reason) is causing a real headache.
There is a promised SDK to land sometime this summer. We'll see if Mozilla can deliver a stable API for more than a few months.
Yes, short term France will make a lot of money, unless there is a nuclear accident in France. Long term, Germany will be able to export more green tech.
And long term they are developing the technological and industrial economies of scale required to corner the market for nuclear power. I'd bet on that sooner than I would bet on unproven technology any day.
In the meantime, their consumers don't get screwed over with higher prices for power either. Green tech sounds nice until you realize it means sticking the common man with twice the bill each month (although it's not like the politicians that vote for it care, since they can easily afford the feel-good luxury).
Since the first halt, Germany became a net power importer from France -- whereas it used to be the other way around. And of course France generates 80% of its power from nuclear. So yeah, they aren't really doing anything except shuffling the plants around.
France is going to make out pretty well from all this, probably going to end up as the major electricity producer on the continent. They are already reaping major economies of scale, having the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing electricity prices in Europe.
there's really only a handful of distros I'd consider to be in the same category as Ubuntu for general ease of installation/use
Try typing in that forty digit key with 1s and ls and 0s and Os. And sit there having to click "yes" or "no" every two minutes for a solid hour -- with a whole lot of reboots. Then installing every application you'll need to do any actual work.
I don't think you understand the difference between difficult and merely tedious. The former involves some sort of unknowns that need to be figured out and overcome before the task is over -- the latter involves doing something you know how to do but either many times or with a lot of waiting.
This is one thing that I think separates the nerds from regular people -- a regular person will instantly pick the grind-it-out way to accomplish something (think cutting and pasting lots of excel cells) because they are confident that they know how to do it that way and they are assured a path to success, even if it's a repetitive one. Meanwhile, when a technical person says "Learn how to script it" they see a big question mark -- they don't know how and, more importantly, they don't know that they will be able to deliver the results.
So yeah, typing in a license key and clicking NEXT a few dozen or hundred times sounds tedious but it's definitely not difficult.
If you think the Repubs are going to do any of that, you're dreaming. They're busy pandering.
If you think Dems are going to let anyone so much as touch Medicare or Social Security, you are also dreaming.
Money spent today buys votes whether it's a tax cut or an entitlement payment.
There is no obscenity exemption in the Constitution. I've looked. The Supreme Court invented the obscenity exemption. Only Congress is supposed to have the power to create law, and they may only modify the Constitution after ratification by the states. The Miller test hasn't passed any of these hurdles so it is quite plainly unconstitutional.
Nor was there ever claimed to be. The "exception" is that not everything that we would like to describe as "speech" that is protected by the First Amendment. Historically, obscene material of no redeeming social value was not considered "speech" at all and Congress and the States can restrict it at will, modulo their other limitations. Now, I don't like this state of affairs one bit, not the idea that obscenity isn't speech and definitely not the idea that we should look to history to decide the scope of the meaning of the words in our Bill of Rights.
Still, your complaint here is like me claiming that you cannot punish me for littering on the road because it's speech and that's protected by the 1A which has no littering exception. Surely you would respond speeding isn't speech and there's no exception at all -- and you would be right. So the upshot of the debate is that before we figure out whether there's an exception or not, we have to decide whether littering (or obscenity) even fall under the protected category in the first place. The framework for figuring out how to classify things as speech or not-speech has to come from somewhere. The Court said it comes from historical understanding, maybe you have a different idea of where it ought to come from and how it ought to work, but in the end there's gotta be some process for making that decision.
I want to reiterate that I don't approve of the way the doctrine works now but at least I can claim that I understand it instead of claiming some non-existent "obscenity exception". Obscenity was never protected and no exception from any protection was ever made because, obviously, none was ever needed.
Even if I have appropriate legal authority to repossess a car, I can still be held criminally liable if I do so with someone's child in the back seat. This is basically the equivalent, only with several thousand people's children in the back seat.
In the sense that a child is equivalent to an inanimate object, sure.
This is why the FBI agents involved should be proper computer specialists who are trained in how to clone the data, and should perform the cloning themselves. What you're giving isn't an argument. It's an excuse for lack of training.
Which is exactly what they do -- seized computers are cloned and read-only copies made in a controlled facility in a well-documented way that preserves the chain of evidence for trial.
I think it's time to hold the FBI to the same standards that they would hold the rest of us. If I went in waving a gun around and demanding to walk away with somebody else's server, they'd throw my ass in jail.
Yeah, because you didn't go to a neutral magistrate and get a search warrant based on a sworn affidavit. There's a difference between saying the FBI should follow the law (and, if there's any indication they didn't get a warrant or the application was defective, it's possible but not mentioned in TFA) and saying that there should effectively be no law enforcement on private property at all.
Heck, the local police here barge into private homes with guns fairly often. About 50% of calls to a home (I worked a bit of IT there a while back and would peruse the logs) were because some guy decided to whale on his wife a little bit or (rarely) vice versa. You wouldn't seriously say that they should face the same standards that would hold me if I barged into someone's house with a gun right?
If they want access to a particular client's content, they can go through the same process as a DMCA takedown request or a backup request would. They make a request, the company yanks that customer's access, then clones that customer's data onto a new drive, then hands them the drive.
Evidence in criminal investigations does not need to be seized voluntarily, that's the entire point of a warrant. What's more, your proposed scheme puts them at the mercy of a hosting company that might be conspiring with the suspects. There's no reason to trust the hosting company not to wipe the actual customer disks and give you some random junk instead.
What's more, if there is incriminating evidence on there and it comes to trial and some FBI agent has to testify about the chain of evidence for some particular files found on a hard drive, defense counsel is going to rip him to shreds if anyone other than a sworn officer or a federal employee so much as touched that drive. "The hosting company cloned it for me" isn't remotely going to fly -- heck it probably won't even get to the jury because it's so lacking in the indicia of reliability.
Criminal, yes. The crimes in question have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, though.
Doesn't that depend on other facts that we don't have?
How about hiring someone who actually has some idea about security. THAT is supporting stockholders.
Short term, he might have a crapload of work to do to implement best practices, clear out infected machines, train users on password complexity all while being attacked and losing business due to unavailability. Shareholders would not appreciate that, nor would any sensible security consultant promise they can dig you out of an attack as it is occurring.
It might be best to pay them for short term protection and using that breathing space to harden up so the next time they ask, you are prepared.
1) Neither, it could be a 12 year old with hotmail sending threatening emails.
If he's threatening to commit crimes in exchange for money, that alone makes his some species of criminal or terrorist.
For between £700,000 and £900,000, sure. I suppose you could also buy a supercomputer to run your website solely in Visual Basic.
For the rest of us with limited means, we have to chose between competing priorities.
Languages are not slow. Algorithms are slow. Execution environments are slow. There is nothing fundamental about JavaScript that makes it slow. Until recently, browsers executed it inefficiently and with few optimizations.
Languages impose constraints that require the execution environment to do more work for a given algorithm written in one language rather than another. Consider the following algorithm in C:
const int N = 1000000;
int someNumbers[N] = GetArrayOfIntsWithLength(N);
int sum = 0;
for(int i = 0; i \LessThan N; ++i)
sum += i;
If you implement this in Java instead of C, it turns out that the call to operator[] must, according to the language constraints, check to see if the value is within the range [0,size) for that array. The JVM may not skip that check and still be compliant Java. So in the end, the algorithm cannot really run as fast on Java because the are simply more operations to be done (to wit, checking that (i > 0 && i \LessThan N) must be done once per iteration.
Now that's not much a slowdown but let's suppose we go a further level up and write it in python (trick question, python already has a 'sum' builtin, also that builtin effectively uses the C version) then it becomes even slower. Each time through the loop, the interpreter must check the types on both sides of the '+=' to make sure they are still ints. Why? Because I can override the int::operator-left-addition to return a string. Now we look up int::operator-left-addition(int) and call that function, passing the two references. That function 'unboxes' the ints (copies them from the heap onto the stack), performs the addition and then creates a new int object on the heap to store the result. Why a new object, because ints in Python are absolutely immutable -- in python, A += B is actually semantic sugar for A = A + B. After we are done with this reference, the old 'sum' object has its reference count decremented and is garbage collected, releasing the memory it held on the heap.
So by the time you are done adding up your numbers in Python, the interpreter has done a massive amount of work that the C version didn't, through no fault of the algorithm and only because of language design choices. Optimizing around those choices is a lot harder than writing a language optimizing for speed in the first instance. On the other hand, I love Python and use it extensively where I think it's appropriate, which is for many non-performance intensive tasks.
Oh for fuck sake slashcode. Less-than isn't meant to close tags.
Languages are not slow. Algorithms are slow. Execution environments are slow. There is nothing fundamental about JavaScript that makes it slow. Until recently, browsers executed it inefficiently and with few optimizations.
Languages impose constraints that require the execution environment to do more work for a given algorithm written in one language rather than another. Consider the following algorithm in C:
const int N = 1000000;
int someNumbers[N] = GetArrayOfIntsWithLength(N);
int sum = 0;
for(int i = 0; i
If you implement this in Java instead of C, it turns out that the call to operator[] must, according to the language constraints, check to see if the value is within the range [0,size) for that array. The JVM may not skip that check and still be compliant Java. So in the end, the algorithm cannot really run as fast on Java because the are simply more operations to be done (to wit, checking that (i > 0 && i absolutely immutable, it has to create a new int for 'sum' whose reference is then assigned to 'sum'. This causes the old object to be dereffed and garbage collected.
So by the time you are done adding up your numbers in Python, the interpreter has done a massive amount of work that the C version didn't, through no fault of the algorithm and only because of language design choices.
It's more like "no longer agonizingly slow" due to herculean (and well-appreciated) efforts to optimize a language that was just not written for speed. You might as well say you upped the voltage to your Prius and say now it's a "super-fast hybrid" -- people that prioritize speed don't buy hybrids and people that buy hybrids obviously didn't consider speed to be a priority.
This is not a criticism, it's just a statement of fact. Even the fastest javascript engines don't even remotely compete with modern interpreted languages (Java, C#), let alone actual bare-metal code (C and friends). Both have their place depending on what you are doing. Having a natively written plugin handle MP3 decoding with a well-defined API seems to me far more logical than expending effort to write it in javascript, especially when it doesn't even run across all browsers yet.
Then again, that's just my $0.02, and as much as I don't think it's a great use of effort, it's damn cool!
Camera-disabling sensors and signaling for everyone! Apple might win a court case on distributing the devices but a PDF of the plans and some software isn't really injunction-able.
I don't see any reason not to put one of these on my house, car, bike and sweater either. It's the ultimate in privacy!
Seriously editors, did you even try to click around their site? Also who said you need any sort of plugin at all?
Even more to the point, who the hell wants to read this atrocity? It's like 90% pictures.
$ wget http://www.eg8forum.com/ebook/data/document.pdf?
--2011-06-13 12:15:12-- http://www.eg8forum.com/ebook/data/document.pdf?
Resolving www.eg8forum.com (www.eg8forum.com)... 4.27.18.126, 8.12.192.126, 209.84.14.126
Connecting to www.eg8forum.com (www.eg8forum.com)|4.27.18.126|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 22279675 (21M) [application/pdf]
Saving to: `document.pdf'
2011-06-13 12:15:16 (6.08 MB/s) - `document.pdf' saved [22279675/22279675]
... so yeah, not really comparable. Even if Google Market had rules as strict as the iTunes store, it would still be fine with me because the user ultimately has control over what is installed. Google is free to provide a "protected space" (whether or not it's a good idea is a different story) if they want to -- users that want to install other apps are free to do so.
Even AT&T, who used to restrict sideloaded apps, have said they will remove the restrictions via firmware updates. http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/05/att-sideload-android-amazon/ -- those of us on SPCS/VZ/TM never had the restriction to being with.
So this is a story about what? Google having a market that they control? We knew that.
... but there's an evolutionary reason why.
When a girl walks in with an itty-bitty waist and a round thing in your face you get vital evolutionary information that acts as a fairly accurate indicator of overall health.
My anaconda don't want none unless you have a high likelihood of producing healthy offspring with a minimal chance of genetic disabilities, hun.
My homeboys tried to warn me, but that butt you got makes me so confident of your current well-being and future child-rearing potential
So ladies (yeah!) ladies (yeah!) You wanna advertise fertility? (hell yeah!) Then turn around, stick it out, even other women have to admit that you appear to have the necessary physical attributes to produce many healthy offspring.
[ Copypasta from this Reddit, all credit to original authors: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/gibxk/i_like_big_butts_and_i_cannot_lie_but_is_there/ ]
Because if there is a crash, your handheld device is going to turn into a flying projectile and womp someone else in the back of the head. In fact, FAA regulations state that all items must be stowed at takeoff and landing for this precise reason -- just because it's handheld now doesn't mean you'll continue to hold on to it.