A Christian praying in a public school is not depriving anyone else of their free exercise rights, however prohibiting said prayer in a public school clearly is.
Unless I can loudly say "la la la la what bullshit la la la" during this prayer, it is depriving me of my free speech.
That I can't says that your prayer is trumping my rights, and has no place in public school. Keep it in your church, or at home.
So why would Google remove one of its best features?
Because Google plans on putting it into something more closely tied with Google+ or some other thing they plan on forcing us to use to increase their revenues?
Google cares about two things, collecting more of your data, and making more money.
Which is why so much of their stuff is perpetually in Beta, so they can decide to change it any time they like.
Correct, but doing it in such a way as to imply that insurance companies care about legal liability, when in fact they only care about their own liability -- if they can get away with denying you coverage they will.
Even if 'technically' the legal liability was with whoever went into your unlocked house.
In other words, legal liability can be detached from what insurance companies are willing to accept, and being right on an abstract point is immaterial.;-)
I don't think credit card numbers are used by the app, anyway. All it has is my Starbucks card linked to it, which in turn is linked to my credit card. But that's on their web site, not the phone app.
So, the question one needs to ask is... if the website is storing your credit card, and the app is storing your password in plaintext... given your password and knowledge of your Starbucks card (which is apparently on the phone), can someone get into the Starbucks website and actually get to your credit card?
In which case, this would be a security risk because you're only really one hop from the CC info.
If this password is also how you log into the website, then it's still terrible security and not really going to deter anybody.
However, I don't buy it. If this researcher has found a way to bypass the hardware encryption on a locked iOS device, that sounds like a bigger and more interesting security hole than one in a shitty Starbucks app.
Ummm... except law enforcement has been able to do this for some time now.
I think it's even been covered here -- I didn't think it was news.
Organisms, including humans, are often assumed to be hard-wired by evolution to try to make optimal decisions, to the best of their knowledge.
What about humans have we seen to suggest humans are rational or are hard-wired make 'optimal' choices?
For biologists (or economists) to make this assumption has always struck me as terribly flawed, because in the real world, we see quite the opposite.
In the case of humans, cultural biases and any number of things skew our decision making to be less than perfect. And any theoretical model which assumes otherwise is pretty much the equivalent of assuming a perfectly spherical cow.
And, as a follow on to that, scan to email has been available in printers for at least 10 years now.
The time to defend that patent was a long time ago.
I'm of the opinion that by the time I can buy something in Staples, the patent situation isn't my problem. I bought a commercial product in good faith, and don't know or care about the myriad of patents involved.
If you think the vendor of said product is infringing your patent, take it up with them. This 'go directly to users of the technology with a shakedown letter and a threat of a lawsuit' should bring criminal charges.
The patent-licensing behavior doesn't even amount to 'commerce' by the standards of the FTC Act, because the letters are not 'the offer of a good or sale for service,'
No, they're an offer for them to pay them money to license your patent, which may or may not even apply or hold up under scrutiny.
If your business model is holding onto patents and getting people to license them, guess what? That's commerce guys.
I sincerely hope these guys get some form of smackdown, or charged under the RICO act or something.
If the ethos of open source software is "free software for the masses", WTF are you doing calling the people you want to be using your software 'freeloaders'?
If you're doing it right, you have a very large base of people who just want it to go and not know or care anything about code, a smaller base of people actively coding and enhancing, and a few people who occasionally find and fix an issue.
If free software/open source is going to start acting like these people are freeloaders, then they've missed the entire point.
You'll never get the Year of the Linux Desktop (or whatever) without a vast number of people who aren't contributing back to it -- and that's kind of the goal, isn't it?
But in my lifetime I've watched some rights and freedoms erode, I've watched a general trend towards people being anti-science and willfully stupid, I've watched what I can only describe as a troubling rise in the role of religion in law, and governments increasingly just focused on expediency instead of the law.
These are not things I consider to be positive trends.
DO you do that in real life, just blame Obama for everything in everyday conversations.
You, sir, are a paranoid loon. I didn't blame Obama for anything, I made a general statement of contempt for modern politics and politicians -- I think they're all full of shit. The rest is your own dumb shit.
DO you do this in daily life? Spout out unsubstantiated conspiracy theories to the point that people won't make eye contact with you?
Or do you just have a tiny penis and the need to randomly shout out loudly for attention?
I must confess, unless it's just to get page hits, or to demonstrate that nobody could plausibly claim to have really been doing a traffic study... I find myself asking the same question.
However, in modern politics, you don't refute the facts, you provide your own 'facts' and talk really loud about something else.
Maybe this is just a more reasoned attempt to short circuit that.
The real question is whether it ordered by a rogue official(s), or the governor himself. If information comes out that the governor was involved then he just lost himself a chance at being president.
No, the real question is, has politics stooped so low that political staff (and possibly politicians) feel entitled to act like petulant little children and expect to get away with it?
And, if so, why is society prepared to live with their politicians and staff acting like such douchebags?
I don't care what political stripe you are, fucking with the traffic patterns to seek retribution against a political foe makes you an asshole.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless I can loudly say "la la la la what bullshit la la la" during this prayer, it is depriving me of my free speech.
That I can't says that your prayer is trumping my rights, and has no place in public school. Keep it in your church, or at home.
Nope. But when Google drops useful features, in my experience it's tied in with forcing people to use some of their other products.
Most other companies I'd say this was to push people to subscriptions, but Google hasn't done that yet that I'm aware of for most things.
It just seems like very useful functionality to be removing, which makes me question the 'why' behind it.
Because Google plans on putting it into something more closely tied with Google+ or some other thing they plan on forcing us to use to increase their revenues?
Google cares about two things, collecting more of your data, and making more money.
Which is why so much of their stuff is perpetually in Beta, so they can decide to change it any time they like.
Correct, but doing it in such a way as to imply that insurance companies care about legal liability, when in fact they only care about their own liability -- if they can get away with denying you coverage they will.
Even if 'technically' the legal liability was with whoever went into your unlocked house.
In other words, legal liability can be detached from what insurance companies are willing to accept, and being right on an abstract point is immaterial. ;-)
No, but they've been known to deny coverage if they can find any little thing which they can blame on you.
Insurance companies aren't exactly known for playing nice in a lot of cases.
So, the question one needs to ask is ... if the website is storing your credit card, and the app is storing your password in plaintext ... given your password and knowledge of your Starbucks card (which is apparently on the phone), can someone get into the Starbucks website and actually get to your credit card?
In which case, this would be a security risk because you're only really one hop from the CC info.
If this password is also how you log into the website, then it's still terrible security and not really going to deter anybody.
Ummm ... except law enforcement has been able to do this for some time now.
I think it's even been covered here -- I didn't think it was news.
Marketing, and collecting consumer information. Exactly what most apps are for these days.
Sure, you might get a small discount now and then, but the treasure trove of marketing data is worth far more than that discount is.
Oh, I don't know ... storing passwords in plain text sounds pretty unreasonably incompetent since we've known for 30+ years it's a stupid idea.
It's not like there should be anybody who doesn't know that yet. At least not anybody you should be trusting to write code.
Given my pasty white complexion, I'll err on the side of caution.
Since 50 doesn't cost any more than 35 in my experience, what's the 'scam' part here?
I see it as more of a big "screw you" to the people who want to watch everything we do.
I'm not committing any crime, and you have no reasonable basis to believe I am. It's still my right to communicate and keep some things private.
But if you're going to insist on tracking everything we do, we're going to make your job harder.
Expect to see lots of products intended to give end-user security.
If you're willing to allow the government to spy on everything you do (clearly not the case since you posted as AC), that's your problem.
Since the whole planet is being spied on by the US, denying them the information is the best response.
Now there's going to be some download logs closely scrutinized by intelligence agencies.
Because, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, right? So if you've got something to hide, you must be guilty of something.
*sigh*
With some bitters, sugar and mint leaves, we call that a mojito. ;-)
LOL, already on it.
Now you've ruined my winter vacation, and while I'm sitting on the beach sipping rum I'll know if I go in the ocean I'll be covered in fish goo.
*sigh* I'll just have to have another rum. Purely to fight infections you understand.
Oracle doesn't usually give a damn about what people want.
If so, they'd already know we don't want that stupid Ask.com toolbar and they should stop trying to sneak it in.
What about humans have we seen to suggest humans are rational or are hard-wired make 'optimal' choices?
For biologists (or economists) to make this assumption has always struck me as terribly flawed, because in the real world, we see quite the opposite.
In the case of humans, cultural biases and any number of things skew our decision making to be less than perfect. And any theoretical model which assumes otherwise is pretty much the equivalent of assuming a perfectly spherical cow.
And, as a follow on to that, scan to email has been available in printers for at least 10 years now.
The time to defend that patent was a long time ago.
I'm of the opinion that by the time I can buy something in Staples, the patent situation isn't my problem. I bought a commercial product in good faith, and don't know or care about the myriad of patents involved.
If you think the vendor of said product is infringing your patent, take it up with them. This 'go directly to users of the technology with a shakedown letter and a threat of a lawsuit' should bring criminal charges.
Burma shave, or Time Cube? I can't tell.
No, they're an offer for them to pay them money to license your patent, which may or may not even apply or hold up under scrutiny.
If your business model is holding onto patents and getting people to license them, guess what? That's commerce guys.
I sincerely hope these guys get some form of smackdown, or charged under the RICO act or something.
That was kind of my thinking.
If the ethos of open source software is "free software for the masses", WTF are you doing calling the people you want to be using your software 'freeloaders'?
If you're doing it right, you have a very large base of people who just want it to go and not know or care anything about code, a smaller base of people actively coding and enhancing, and a few people who occasionally find and fix an issue.
If free software/open source is going to start acting like these people are freeloaders, then they've missed the entire point.
You'll never get the Year of the Linux Desktop (or whatever) without a vast number of people who aren't contributing back to it -- and that's kind of the goal, isn't it?
Very true.
But in my lifetime I've watched some rights and freedoms erode, I've watched a general trend towards people being anti-science and willfully stupid, I've watched what I can only describe as a troubling rise in the role of religion in law, and governments increasingly just focused on expediency instead of the law.
These are not things I consider to be positive trends.
You, sir, are a paranoid loon. I didn't blame Obama for anything, I made a general statement of contempt for modern politics and politicians -- I think they're all full of shit. The rest is your own dumb shit.
DO you do this in daily life? Spout out unsubstantiated conspiracy theories to the point that people won't make eye contact with you?
Or do you just have a tiny penis and the need to randomly shout out loudly for attention?
Sadly, for some number of years now.
I must confess, unless it's just to get page hits, or to demonstrate that nobody could plausibly claim to have really been doing a traffic study ... I find myself asking the same question.
However, in modern politics, you don't refute the facts, you provide your own 'facts' and talk really loud about something else.
Maybe this is just a more reasoned attempt to short circuit that.
No, the real question is, has politics stooped so low that political staff (and possibly politicians) feel entitled to act like petulant little children and expect to get away with it?
And, if so, why is society prepared to live with their politicians and staff acting like such douchebags?
I don't care what political stripe you are, fucking with the traffic patterns to seek retribution against a political foe makes you an asshole.