The mission's scientific objective was to search for and characterize a wide range of rocks and soils that hold clues to past water activity on Mars.
Having been sent there to see if water could have been there and if we can find evidence of that, and after being a huge success, lasting longer than planned, and giving us evidence that, yes, at one point Mars had liquid water... you're actually bitching that it hasn't found fossils? Seriously?
If you can't implement #2 with technical measures, you have no legal expectation of anything but #1.
If you do #3, it doesn't mean people will accept seeing ads, or that we'd have given you revenue anyway. We might still block your damned ads.
Most things which fall into #4 do that, AND have a crap ton of ads.
How the site generates income isn't my problem. Your business model doesn't mean that I'm obligated to care.
That most ads are served by 3rd party analytics companies who want to know everything you do on the web... well, those companies I will block every chance I get. Because they're basically just parasites.
Do you have any idea of how hard it is to know all of the requests a web site is making?
Your average user certainly doesn't know how, and you don't "request" the pages, because you usually have no way of knowing they're even involved.
That embedded crap from scorecard research and all of those other analytics companies? Unless you're running a lot of privacy extensions you can't even know they're getting invoked.
Just because the people who own a website include a license that says "by visiting this page you consent to all of the shady, underhanded crap we have embedded in our pages" means you're required to allow it.
Until browsers by default give the ability to block advertising and third party stuff, it takes a fairly savvy user to know that stuff is there and to block it.
And I don't mean the incompetently implemented blocking of 3rd party cookies in Safari which doesn't do anything. I mean real, user controllable blocking which lets the user know there's 20+ external parties who are getting told when you visit a website.
Since I've been running things like Ghostery, Request Policy, or HTTP Switchboard... even I am surprised at the sheer amount of tracking and other crap which is embedded in the average web page.
But your average user? They have no frigging idea any of this stuff is there, and haven't been asked if they agree.
I especially like the ads that cover the whole page or cause the page to scroll the text randomly up and down while you are trying read the content, which is actually the only reason I'm at the site to begin with.
Bah, the content is secondary... the purpose of the site is to sell advertising.
They just can't figure out how to get you there without some content.
And web sites which start playing music? That's been annoying for as long as it's been possible, and something I've had disabled for a long time.
God, I remember the horror of terrible fscking midi songs playing on websites. Sorry, no, you deserve a kick in the head if you think your website should start playing music.
I predict these companies will try to make it illegal for users to use any form of ad blocking.
Good luck with that.
Greedy bastards seem to think their desire to get paid means we're legally obligated to do so.
If your site wants to display ads, host them yourselves. But if you think I'm going to allow 3rd party trackers to support your business model, you're horribly mistaken.
The DMCA was so badly written as to more or less entrench rent-seeking and remove property ownership from consumers.
Instead of saying "yes, you bought this product, it's yours", they've entrenched the "oh, you've only licensed it and we will tell you how you're allowed to use it".
Sorry, but if I bought it, I retain right of first sale. Which means I should be able to do anything I want with it, because it's my property.
This absurd notion that they still own it and define what I can do with it is stupid. If I don't own it, why should I pay you for it?
But, of course, the law was written to hastily ensure corporate rent seeking, because it was paid for by lobbyists.
It's a question that strikes at the heart of how these companies self-identify. If they are just facilitating a relationship between a third-party driver and a user, as they claim they do as "technology companies," then they shouldn't be liable for much, if anything.
That leaves much of the insurance burden on the drivers, who are using their own personal cars and their own personal car insurance (PCI). What these drivers may not know, however, is that their PCI policy may not cover them if they're driving for Uber, Lyft, or any other "ride-sharing" app.
They are the ones making claims which aren't supported in law.
Basically you've done no research and don't know what the hell you are talking about, but don't let that stop you from complaining.
No, I've heard actual Uber spokespeople talking to the media, because they're trying to come into the city where I live.
They keep saying "oh, we don't need commercial licenses" and "we don't need to do that". The problem is that they're full of shit and can't unilaterally decree they're not covered by the law.
Having heard their arguments about why the law doesn't apply to them, or why they're special because they're not a cab company but a software company... I'm forced to conclude they're willing to operate outside of the law, and seem to think they can be the ones to decide what laws and regulations apply to them.
Sorry, but that's completely delusional. All they are is an app which allows for pirate cabs, which they somehow think exempts them from legal oversight.
I'm torn... on the one hand, yeah, childish vandals.
On the other hand, if Sony is not going to care about their security, they deserve this.
Way too many companies just simply don't seem to care. Maybe what Sony needs is to have their noses rubbed in it, and then the might actually put some effort in it.
This complete indifference to security is just stupid.
Laziness and greed, and an indifference to security.
This seems like a recurring thing... I'm pretty sure Sony has been hacked several times over the last few years.
If security doesn't make you money, and you have no penalty for being incompetent at it... why spend money on it?
When companies start having penalties for getting hacked and leaking people's information, they might do something. In the mean time, if all they have to say is "oops, sorry" don't expect anything to change.
What liability does Uber accept for the behavior and actions of its drivers?
From what I can tell, they seem to accept none of that, and they claim since these people don't work for them they're exempt from all regulations, because they just dispatch.
Where I live, to be a cab you need a commercial drivers license, proper insurance, regular vehicle inspections, a tax license, and are legally required to have a camera installed in your car.
Uber is claiming they don't have to worry about any of those things, and that the laws don't apply.
I think Uber is full of shit, and are running a shady business where they're skirting around the law and calling it competition.
You can't simply decide the laws and regulations around a car-for-hire service don't apply to you. They're just telling people it's safe to ride in an unlicensed cab which may or may not have the proper insurance.
No thanks. I don't want to do business with a company who does that.
Me, why I'd want to get a ride from someone who has neither the proper drivers license nor insurance to be doing this has always been a mystery.
Oooh, but it's an app, so it must be good, right?
Uber likes to try to frame this discussion of how it's trying to compete with the big bad taxi lobby. What they are actually doing is running unlicensed cabs operated by people who aren't very accountable, and if something goes wrong they'll claim "well, we just dispatch, we're not a cab company".
Wow. You spent all that time explaining how iOS devices sync with iTunes when the lawsuit is referring to a time period before iTunes existed.
What the hell are you talking about?
The class includes individuals and businesses who bought iPod classic, iPod shuffle, iPod touch or iPod nano models between Sept. 12, 2006 and March 31, 2009
I've been using iTunes since around 2001 or so.
Unless you see something in TFA the rest of us don't, you seem to be talking out of your ass. Because iTunes sure as hell existed between 2006 and 2009.
iTunes the program existed before iTunes the music store.
If auto-synch is left on, of course it erases the entire library and replaces it with your iTunes library. If the non-iTunes purchased songs were loaded onto the iPod from another source, then of course they don't get re-added until you go and add them again from the other source.
Well, and it depends on what you're doing.
I was trying to do something on my iPod touch the other week. The message it gave me was that there were things on the iPod which hadn't been transferred to iTunes... took me a while to realize that just because I'd sync'd it and backed it up, that doesn't mean the purchases have been transferred.
I've got a bunch of MP3s in my iTunes I had before I had iTunes. They all have sync'd just find with my last several iPods and my iPod.
I'd be curious to hear more detail about this. Because in my experience this doesn't match what iTunes does.
But, then again, I've never downloaded anything from RealNetworks, nor do I plan to.
Everyone has been spying on everyone for at least a couple of centuries.... Nothing's changed, other than public awareness of espionage.
And the scale on which the technology allows this to happen.
See, before the interwebs and computers, there was no mechanism to tap into an entire country's phone systems.
So it's pretty much bullshit to say nothing has changed. Technology has allowed the scope of this to be done on an absolutely mind-boggling scale.
And this sense of self entitlement which says the rest of the world should be giving up our rights in service to the security of Americans... well, we don't see it that way.
If your security comes at my expense, I'm afraid I couldn't care less about your damned security.
Because in doing this crap, America has become the enemy of the liberty of everyone else on the planet.
Do the NSA and the American government believe in any way they should be free from other people spying on them? Or have they completely given up and decided "fuck it, everybody is spying anyway"?
Because if the NSA or the US government are ever again going to complain about Chinese hackers, or pretty much any form of computer crime, it's the biggest pile of shit imaginable.
Pretty much America has publicly said "we'll spy on anybody we can", which means you have no right to bitch when others do it you.
Thanks, assholes, for undermining the rights of everyone on the planet.
America has been taking too many lessions from Canada in the criminal law department. That is 100% unconstitutional.
Hey, don't blame Canada for that... you guys have been openly ignoring your own Constitution pretty much daily for 13 years. You've probably been quietly ignoring it longer.
Stop and frisk? Border stops within 100 miles of the border? An AG who said Habeus Corpus wasn't a right? Secret courts? Warrantless wiretapping? Blanket surveillance? Parallel construction?
That shit is all on you, and has been publicly supported by your own politicians and much of your citizenry.
If anything, America has been putting on a clinic of how to erode and undermine civil rights, and then exporting that everywhere else.
America ignored her own Constitution on her own terms.
I would guess there's relatively little crime within a block of the police station.
Cynically, I will say it's because the police don't like competition.
These days I'm mostly convinced that enough police neither know nor care what the law says, and the Blue Wall is still alive in the face of police misconduct.
I'm sure there are honest cops... but the only way they'll be able to give us any confidence in that is when they start arresting their own when it needs to happen.
How are corporations supposed to monetize your telephone if they can't put additional shit to change "your" phone to maximize their profits?
Yeah, I'm with you. I thought the whole point of the Nexus devices was you get the full Android experience and it hasn't been mucked with.
I have Facebook and some other crap on my phone my carrier put there. I can disable it, but I can't uninstall it. I bought the phone outright, what the hell do you mean I can't uninstall your crapware?
Slashdot Mirror
So, the spammers are more interested in good customer service than the real companies?
Sad.
You're joking, right?
The original mission was:
Having been sent there to see if water could have been there and if we can find evidence of that, and after being a huge success, lasting longer than planned, and giving us evidence that, yes, at one point Mars had liquid water ... you're actually bitching that it hasn't found fossils? Seriously?
If you can't implement #2 with technical measures, you have no legal expectation of anything but #1.
If you do #3, it doesn't mean people will accept seeing ads, or that we'd have given you revenue anyway. We might still block your damned ads.
Most things which fall into #4 do that, AND have a crap ton of ads.
How the site generates income isn't my problem. Your business model doesn't mean that I'm obligated to care.
That most ads are served by 3rd party analytics companies who want to know everything you do on the web ... well, those companies I will block every chance I get. Because they're basically just parasites.
Do you have any idea of how hard it is to know all of the requests a web site is making?
Your average user certainly doesn't know how, and you don't "request" the pages, because you usually have no way of knowing they're even involved.
That embedded crap from scorecard research and all of those other analytics companies? Unless you're running a lot of privacy extensions you can't even know they're getting invoked.
Just because the people who own a website include a license that says "by visiting this page you consent to all of the shady, underhanded crap we have embedded in our pages" means you're required to allow it.
Until browsers by default give the ability to block advertising and third party stuff, it takes a fairly savvy user to know that stuff is there and to block it.
And I don't mean the incompetently implemented blocking of 3rd party cookies in Safari which doesn't do anything. I mean real, user controllable blocking which lets the user know there's 20+ external parties who are getting told when you visit a website.
Since I've been running things like Ghostery, Request Policy, or HTTP Switchboard ... even I am surprised at the sheer amount of tracking and other crap which is embedded in the average web page.
But your average user? They have no frigging idea any of this stuff is there, and haven't been asked if they agree.
Bah, the content is secondary ... the purpose of the site is to sell advertising.
They just can't figure out how to get you there without some content.
And web sites which start playing music? That's been annoying for as long as it's been possible, and something I've had disabled for a long time.
God, I remember the horror of terrible fscking midi songs playing on websites. Sorry, no, you deserve a kick in the head if you think your website should start playing music.
I predict these companies will try to make it illegal for users to use any form of ad blocking.
Good luck with that.
Greedy bastards seem to think their desire to get paid means we're legally obligated to do so.
If your site wants to display ads, host them yourselves. But if you think I'm going to allow 3rd party trackers to support your business model, you're horribly mistaken.
The DMCA was so badly written as to more or less entrench rent-seeking and remove property ownership from consumers.
Instead of saying "yes, you bought this product, it's yours", they've entrenched the "oh, you've only licensed it and we will tell you how you're allowed to use it".
Sorry, but if I bought it, I retain right of first sale. Which means I should be able to do anything I want with it, because it's my property.
This absurd notion that they still own it and define what I can do with it is stupid. If I don't own it, why should I pay you for it?
But, of course, the law was written to hastily ensure corporate rent seeking, because it was paid for by lobbyists.
Unless you count criminal or legal liability, and then it's really important.
Sorry, but bullshit:
They are the ones making claims which aren't supported in law.
No, I've heard actual Uber spokespeople talking to the media, because they're trying to come into the city where I live.
They keep saying "oh, we don't need commercial licenses" and "we don't need to do that". The problem is that they're full of shit and can't unilaterally decree they're not covered by the law.
Having heard their arguments about why the law doesn't apply to them, or why they're special because they're not a cab company but a software company ... I'm forced to conclude they're willing to operate outside of the law, and seem to think they can be the ones to decide what laws and regulations apply to them.
Sorry, but that's completely delusional. All they are is an app which allows for pirate cabs, which they somehow think exempts them from legal oversight.
That's pretty much bullshit.
I'm torn ... on the one hand, yeah, childish vandals.
On the other hand, if Sony is not going to care about their security, they deserve this.
Way too many companies just simply don't seem to care. Maybe what Sony needs is to have their noses rubbed in it, and then the might actually put some effort in it.
This complete indifference to security is just stupid.
Are you kidding?
Laziness and greed, and an indifference to security.
This seems like a recurring thing ... I'm pretty sure Sony has been hacked several times over the last few years.
If security doesn't make you money, and you have no penalty for being incompetent at it ... why spend money on it?
When companies start having penalties for getting hacked and leaking people's information, they might do something. In the mean time, if all they have to say is "oops, sorry" don't expect anything to change.
From what I can tell, they seem to accept none of that, and they claim since these people don't work for them they're exempt from all regulations, because they just dispatch.
Where I live, to be a cab you need a commercial drivers license, proper insurance, regular vehicle inspections, a tax license, and are legally required to have a camera installed in your car.
Uber is claiming they don't have to worry about any of those things, and that the laws don't apply.
I think Uber is full of shit, and are running a shady business where they're skirting around the law and calling it competition.
You can't simply decide the laws and regulations around a car-for-hire service don't apply to you. They're just telling people it's safe to ride in an unlicensed cab which may or may not have the proper insurance.
No thanks. I don't want to do business with a company who does that.
So, hitch-hiking but with cooler technology?
Me, why I'd want to get a ride from someone who has neither the proper drivers license nor insurance to be doing this has always been a mystery.
Oooh, but it's an app, so it must be good, right?
Uber likes to try to frame this discussion of how it's trying to compete with the big bad taxi lobby. What they are actually doing is running unlicensed cabs operated by people who aren't very accountable, and if something goes wrong they'll claim "well, we just dispatch, we're not a cab company".
Sorry, but no.
Will someone please build me the Tony Stark interface with this stuff?
Kthanksbye.
What the hell are you talking about?
I've been using iTunes since around 2001 or so.
Unless you see something in TFA the rest of us don't, you seem to be talking out of your ass. Because iTunes sure as hell existed between 2006 and 2009.
iTunes the program existed before iTunes the music store.
Well, and it depends on what you're doing.
I was trying to do something on my iPod touch the other week. The message it gave me was that there were things on the iPod which hadn't been transferred to iTunes ... took me a while to realize that just because I'd sync'd it and backed it up, that doesn't mean the purchases have been transferred.
I've got a bunch of MP3s in my iTunes I had before I had iTunes. They all have sync'd just find with my last several iPods and my iPod.
I'd be curious to hear more detail about this. Because in my experience this doesn't match what iTunes does.
But, then again, I've never downloaded anything from RealNetworks, nor do I plan to.
And the scale on which the technology allows this to happen.
See, before the interwebs and computers, there was no mechanism to tap into an entire country's phone systems.
So it's pretty much bullshit to say nothing has changed. Technology has allowed the scope of this to be done on an absolutely mind-boggling scale.
And this sense of self entitlement which says the rest of the world should be giving up our rights in service to the security of Americans ... well, we don't see it that way.
If your security comes at my expense, I'm afraid I couldn't care less about your damned security.
Because in doing this crap, America has become the enemy of the liberty of everyone else on the planet.
Do the NSA and the American government believe in any way they should be free from other people spying on them? Or have they completely given up and decided "fuck it, everybody is spying anyway"?
Because if the NSA or the US government are ever again going to complain about Chinese hackers, or pretty much any form of computer crime, it's the biggest pile of shit imaginable.
Pretty much America has publicly said "we'll spy on anybody we can", which means you have no right to bitch when others do it you.
Thanks, assholes, for undermining the rights of everyone on the planet.
Don't get caught?
But ... it is your civic duty to assist law enforcement in any capacity you can, at all times.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.
Papers, please, comrade.
Hey, don't blame Canada for that ... you guys have been openly ignoring your own Constitution pretty much daily for 13 years. You've probably been quietly ignoring it longer.
Stop and frisk? Border stops within 100 miles of the border? An AG who said Habeus Corpus wasn't a right? Secret courts? Warrantless wiretapping? Blanket surveillance? Parallel construction?
That shit is all on you, and has been publicly supported by your own politicians and much of your citizenry.
If anything, America has been putting on a clinic of how to erode and undermine civil rights, and then exporting that everywhere else.
America ignored her own Constitution on her own terms.
Cynically, I will say it's because the police don't like competition.
These days I'm mostly convinced that enough police neither know nor care what the law says, and the Blue Wall is still alive in the face of police misconduct.
I'm sure there are honest cops ... but the only way they'll be able to give us any confidence in that is when they start arresting their own when it needs to happen.
Sadly, that's where companies have decided is where the real money comes from.
Everybody bitches about Apple's walled garden. And every other company is trying to build their own.
If you can control the places where your users go to buy music, or movies, or where the advertising comes from ... well, you get a steady cash supply.
"Brand Differentiation" and "monetization" is where it's at. And you can't do that with a stock version of Android if you're not Google.
Mobile devices and the stuff people do with them has become the new cash cow. I don't see that changing. And everybody wants in on that action.
But ... but ... branding!
How are corporations supposed to monetize your telephone if they can't put additional shit to change "your" phone to maximize their profits?
Yeah, I'm with you. I thought the whole point of the Nexus devices was you get the full Android experience and it hasn't been mucked with.
I have Facebook and some other crap on my phone my carrier put there. I can disable it, but I can't uninstall it. I bought the phone outright, what the hell do you mean I can't uninstall your crapware?
Oh? What kind of stuff? I have a 2012 Nexus 7 ... at least, I think it's a 2012 version, I've lost track.
I haven't been offered the update, but I'm wondering about the kinds of problems you've had.
I don't want to "upgrade" only to find out I've ended up with a less usable device.