"Four U.S. senators Tuesday called on Apple to yank iPhone and iPad apps that help drunken drivers evade police..."
The police and the private companies that make breathalysers should open these devices to public scrutiny to prove their reliability, until then people should be able to do everything in their power to avoid being forced to use these black boxes.
I'd say that makes sense, except that there are so many tools available to a user to reduce (or even eliminate) spam in their Inbox that would compensate for any lack of natural constraints, like the one you refer too, thereby eliminating the need for the criminal justice system to be involved at all.
I pay for the trash bags to put the junk mail in I pay for the trash service to take the junk mail away I pay with my time having to sift through the junk mail to make sure my real mail hasn't been inserted into it I pay in time when I have to track down a bill that's been thrown away when it's stuff into junk mail
Regarding hijacking servers, that's illegal and it focuses on a specific action. Charge him with hijacking a server.
The fact is, as one another person posted, the reason junk-snail mail has not been outlawed is because it server an economic purpose by feeding money into the postal system. That's why one in illegal and the other is not. IT's not based on right or wrong, it's based on economics and who benefits from it being legal. And that thinking corrupts the law.
Why should I be forced to receive something that I didn't ask for? Whether that be spam or junk-mail? Making one illegal an the other illegal creates ambiguity in the law because the law is no longer about right and wrong. Spam vs. Junk-mail just being a small example.
I still can't believe this guys was given four years for doing the same thing that companies do to my snail-mailbox everyday. Laws should not be based on what medium was used to perform an action; they should be based on the actions themselves. Either outlaw electronic junk mail and snail-mail junk mail or don't do anything at all. Doing the former only serves to corrupt the law.
Renouncing your US citizenship isn't as straightforward or as easy has you make it sound. You usually must first become a citizen of another country before the US will allow you to renounce your citizenship and that can take years or decades. During that time, assuming you find a country that will let you stay while you await citizenship, you're obligated to pay taxes to the US and you new home country. No country likes to give up give up a source of revenue.
"The bill would clarify U.S. law by saying that it is an act of espionage to publish the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the U.S. military or intelligence community."
Anyone who would want to create a classification of people who are immune from public scrutiny is definitely an enemy of United States. That's you Rep. King.
Incidents like this demonstrate that when the Government says they'll keep your data secure and private (body scanner data, for example) that it's representatives are either intentionally lying or naive, or both.
But they still demand more "tools" (ie- power) and insist that they are competent custodians. No government should ever be trusted this much, no matter how just and righteous it is.
Closed Source and Open Source are a bad idea as far as voting is concerned. It takes a process that should be open, transparent and easy to understand and makes it complicated and something that only a programmer can understand.
Electronic voting will probably be on of the biggest internal threats to American Democracy that our generation will need to address.
The publisher made a decision the poster disagrees with. If it's a big enough deal then the poster should find a new publisher that refuses to sell through Apple until Apple changes their policy.
It sounds like the problem is really between you and your publisher, not between you and Apple. It may be time for you to find a publisher that shares your position on the situation, because it doesn't sound like your publisher does.
I think Apple's reasoning behind this policy is pretty simple: If you want to develop cross-platform applications then build web apps.
Section 3.3.1 is the middle ground between Apple's policy when the iPhone was first released in 2007 and the policy that existed prior to 3.3.1. Remember that entire year that we begged for the ability to write native apps?
Now Apple is partially rolling back their policy and cutting out 3rd party development tools for native apps, but at the same time (whether they realize it or not) they are pushing the web as their preferred platform for cross-platform application development.
There are legitimate negative consequences associated with the 3.3.1 policy, but I think it's hard to argue with the fact that a policy like this is good for the future of web applications and improving the web as a development platform.
Actually, it's a Free as in Consumer and Business issue. People should be free to buy products that suit their needs without government interference and businesses should be free to implement a business model without government interference.
Apple has a piece of hardware and software that people want to buy, but people like you want to interfere.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds expensive. Good thing we're rich!
"Four U.S. senators Tuesday called on Apple to yank iPhone and iPad apps that help drunken drivers evade police..."
The police and the private companies that make breathalysers should open these devices to public scrutiny to prove their reliability, until then people should be able to do everything in their power to avoid being forced to use these black boxes.
So now I'm a law abiding citizen who can't enter a stadium that my tax dollars helped pay for?
And I AM forced to pay my taxes.
I'd say that makes sense, except that there are so many tools available to a user to reduce (or even eliminate) spam in their Inbox that would compensate for any lack of natural constraints, like the one you refer too, thereby eliminating the need for the criminal justice system to be involved at all.
So basically you're saying that this guy went to jail because he was wasteful and not because of the effect his practices had on the recipients?
As a recipient:
I pay for the trash bags to put the junk mail in
I pay for the trash service to take the junk mail away
I pay with my time having to sift through the junk mail to make sure my real mail hasn't been inserted into it
I pay in time when I have to track down a bill that's been thrown away when it's stuff into junk mail
Regarding hijacking servers, that's illegal and it focuses on a specific action. Charge him with hijacking a server.
The fact is, as one another person posted, the reason junk-snail mail has not been outlawed is because it server an economic purpose by feeding money into the postal system. That's why one in illegal and the other is not. IT's not based on right or wrong, it's based on economics and who benefits from it being legal. And that thinking corrupts the law.
Why should I be forced to receive something that I didn't ask for? Whether that be spam or junk-mail? Making one illegal an the other illegal creates ambiguity in the law because the law is no longer about right and wrong. Spam vs. Junk-mail just being a small example.
I still can't believe this guys was given four years for doing the same thing that companies do to my snail-mailbox everyday. Laws should not be based on what medium was used to perform an action; they should be based on the actions themselves. Either outlaw electronic junk mail and snail-mail junk mail or don't do anything at all. Doing the former only serves to corrupt the law.
Renouncing your US citizenship isn't as straightforward or as easy has you make it sound. You usually must first become a citizen of another country before the US will allow you to renounce your citizenship and that can take years or decades. During that time, assuming you find a country that will let you stay while you await citizenship, you're obligated to pay taxes to the US and you new home country. No country likes to give up give up a source of revenue.
Electing to leave: A reader's guide to expatriating on November 3
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/10/0080240
"The bill would clarify U.S. law by saying that it is an act of espionage to publish the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the U.S. military or intelligence community."
Anyone who would want to create a classification of people who are immune from public scrutiny is definitely an enemy of United States. That's you Rep. King.
I'll bet it won't have a camera!
This study was obviously funded by dogs.
And the flight actually serves a purpose and gets you to your destination.
Body scanners are just security theater and offer you nothing positive in return.
Incidents like this demonstrate that when the Government says they'll keep your data secure and private (body scanner data, for example) that it's representatives are either intentionally lying or naive, or both.
But they still demand more "tools" (ie- power) and insist that they are competent custodians. No government should ever be trusted this much, no matter how just and righteous it is.
Closed Source and Open Source are a bad idea as far as voting is concerned. It takes a process that should be open, transparent and easy to understand and makes it complicated and something that only a programmer can understand.
Electronic voting will probably be on of the biggest internal threats to American Democracy that our generation will need to address.
An interesting article written several months ago about Duke Nukem Forever and what the developers at 3D Realms went through
Learn to Let Go: How Success Killed Duke Nukem
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_duke_nukem/all/1
So you're taking away the my freedom to have legal anonymous communication in order to catch only the stupid criminals?
Sounds like a bad trade-off to me.
The victim has a small penis in his pants, but the culprit has a hairy vagina around his mouth. Is it irony, coincidence, or Love?
Did you RMFP?
The publisher made a decision the poster disagrees with. If it's a big enough deal then the poster should find a new publisher that refuses to sell through Apple until Apple changes their policy.
It sounds like the problem is really between you and your publisher, not between you and Apple. It may be time for you to find a publisher that shares your position on the situation, because it doesn't sound like your publisher does.
There is no way in hell the EU is ever going to let that happen. Tables are open, place your bets!
I think Apple's reasoning behind this policy is pretty simple: If you want to develop cross-platform applications then build web apps.
Section 3.3.1 is the middle ground between Apple's policy when the iPhone was first released in 2007 and the policy that existed prior to 3.3.1. Remember that entire year that we begged for the ability to write native apps?
Now Apple is partially rolling back their policy and cutting out 3rd party development tools for native apps, but at the same time (whether they realize it or not) they are pushing the web as their preferred platform for cross-platform application development.
There are legitimate negative consequences associated with the 3.3.1 policy, but I think it's hard to argue with the fact that a policy like this is good for the future of web applications and improving the web as a development platform.
That sushi in the banner is imitation crab. That's a red flag.
I hope this article is a joke; it's the thing that would make this story interesting.
"To the very best of the collective ecosystem knowledge..."
Any statement that begins like that is surely BS.
Actually, it's a Free as in Consumer and Business issue. People should be free to buy products that suit their needs without government interference and businesses should be free to implement a business model without government interference.
Apple has a piece of hardware and software that people want to buy, but people like you want to interfere.
I should be free to buy what I want.