Exactly, I wonder if Apple realizes that there are problems with its software/hardware as well, so far my guess would be no. All i ever hear from apple people is how everything "Just Works".
Apple marketing never admits to them, but Apple does sometimes find and fix problems. Note the re-appearance of Firewire on the latest MacBook. The increasing robustness of AppleShare when the server is disconnected in OS X (terrible in 10.1, usable in 10.3, almost transparent in 10.5). The existence of Boot Camp.
Even this doesn't work. Legitimate banks do this (http://www.usbank.com is one, who I've banked with in some fashion since I had a net worth of over $50). Note that after you type your username in, you're taken to a secure page.
Legitimate banks do it, but they shouldn't. At least usbank.com isn't asking for the password on the unsecured site. But just because they do it doesn't mean you should put up with it -- https://www.usbank.com also works, and really is secure.
If you want your scripts to be compatible with just about every Unix, you still need to stick with/bin/sh (yes, I know, it's a compatibility mode). If you don't, might as well use a better scripting language.
1) Write a flame-filled letter decrying the idiocy of all but one of your co-workers. Conclude it with "As for me, I deserved to be fired because I was so stupid I left my workstation unlocked when I left."
2) Write whatever you want, but translate to EBCDIC before you send it. (not recommended when leaving IBM).
The letter asks for repayments to be sent to Fargo, North Dakota. If I got a letter purporting to be from my former company asking me to send money to a totally different state from that where I had worked and that where the company was based, I'd be more than a bit suspicious. This is apparently legit, but I wonder if any employees thought it was a scam (a scam by other than Microsoft, anyway)...
The home user part is just a distraction; if it actually gets to the notice of lawmakers they'll write a weak-ass exemption (which the FBI will immediately figure a way around when they want to nail a home user). The whole concept of requiring people to keep records to make the police's job easier is a bad idea in the first place. It screams "police state".
You don't get to say it is software and not a license just becaues YOU don't want it to be a license. That isn't how this works.
I get to say it's software because it IS software. I go down to Best Buy, plunk down cash for a box which contains a CD. That CD is (or contains) a copy of a software program. I now own that copy, which Best Buy had owned before. If you don't agree... what exactly is it that I own, between the time I purchase the box and the time I attempt to install the software?
The courts are not unanimous on this, but my position is not wholly unsupported, either -- SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc, for instance.
What they're allegedly doing is scummy, but not extortion. Or rather, it's only extortion if Yelp itself is generating the negative reviews. Accepting cash to remove legitimate negative reviews is just slimy.
The notion that you are purchasing software is false anyways. You are purchasing a license to use the software and they are kind enough to provide you the media to install it.
No, I'm not. I'm purchasing a copy of the software. The "license" story is a fiction that the software makers use to try to retain rights beyond those copyright gives them, but it doesn't really hold up. They can't on the one hand treat software as a commodity which they can pass on to distributors who then pass it on to retailers by moving media around using standard contracts for sales of goods, and on the other treat it as a licensing transaction between themselves and the end user (who may not even have been in contact, let alone formed a contract).
You get 90 percent of the value just by using the right attitude. And the right attitude is: If someone is given instructions, and cannot follow the instructions, then the fault is with the instructions, not the person who can't follow it. Assume that the reader of the instructions is a reasonably intelligent person who doesn't have the slightest clue what you are writing about and who is completely incapable of reading your mind. And that they will give you a call at three am in the night and get you out of bed if they can't figure out your instructions.
This would be a great attitude to have if it wasn't based on a false assumption. The first time a complete idiot calls you at 3am you're going to have second thoughts about it. The fifth time the same idiot calls you about the SAME issue, which you explained the last four times, and elaborated the documentation each time, you're going to disconnect the phone, write nothing but cryptic notes in the future, and mutter "if it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand".
Having read the warrant I'd say the arrest was not unreasonable. Her lying and attempting to hide the phone left the officer no choice but to arrest her to be able to search her; had she given up the phone at the start she probably would not have been arrested.
The warrant, IMHO, contained enough information to, err, warrant an arrest; independent of other behaviors on her part.
There's no warrant, only a police report. Why was a search necessary? Obviously, they wanted to do one, but what legal justification was there for one? Having a phone isn't, in itself, illegal (or they could have arrested her for that, instead of that old catch-all of "disorderly conduct"). What crime had she committed to justify an arrest? You're probably right that if she'd given up the phone at the start there would have been no arrest; that only demonstrates that she'd committed no crime and the arrest was a pretext for a warrantless search and seizure.
It doesn't matter if "climate change" is real or not. Quite similar to Pascal's Wager.
Pascal's Wager sucks. There's no more reason to believe in Pascal's God who punishes disbelievers than my theoretical God who created the earth, but thinks he erased all the evidence that it was anything but natural, and gets VERY cross when people believe in a god or Gods anyway.
If I live responsibly, then I have been slightly inconvenienced, but I still get to feel like a good guy.
This works on an individual level, sort-of. But on an individual level you don't have much effect either way. It doesn't work on a larger scale. If governments put in place the sort of carbon-reduction measures that various doomsday scientists have been clamoring for, they will have a very significant cost, in freedom, in quality of life and (mostly for the poor, naturally) in lives.
And, there's always the equivalent to my believer-punishing God -- Larry Niven's "Falling Angels" scenario, where anthropogenic warming is actually preventing the Earth's entry into an ice age. Yeah, it's very unlikely, but it shows that it _does_ matter if climate change is real.
If you don't implement the security, you're not secure. The author claims that some browsers don't check to see that an intermediate certificate is actually authorized to sign other certificates. So naturally there's a simple attack based on that, but it doesn't really show a flaw in SSL.
The author also complains about companies which post secure forms on non-secure pages, which is a valid complaint but is also a case of "You're using it wrong" rather than a problem with the protocols. Most users are never going to check for the lock (or whatever), so the basic problem will be with us forever, but banks don't have to screw it up by putting login forms on non-secure pages normally. Yes, it's convenient to have a login on a home page, and yes it would consume too many resources to make every home page hit into an https hit, but security ought to count for something, particularly with a bank.
No more common than someone reporting one side of the story to bolster their case while making the otehr side look bad.
In this case, the only side of the story we have is that of the police officer. Yet some people are basing their opinion that the arrest was justified on the assumption of additional bad behavior on the part of the arrestee.
When they find him not guilty, they need to start hauling in his managers for filing false police reports and the prosecutor for negligence.
Don't be silly. They'll just keep delaying and piling on charges. Then they'll offer a plea bargain. He'll take it, because the alternative is rotting in jail for several MORE months, waiting for trial -- and possibly losing at the end because a jury is always a crapshoot.
It's pretty clear there was no justification for the search. The disorderly conduct charge was invented specifically to "justify" the search as a search incident to arrest.
Wisconsin law provides "Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor."
Texting in class doesn't fall under any of the listed categories, so already you have to use the catch-all "otherwise disorderly". But what really makes it clear is that no arrest was made after the conduct was described and investigated. Instead, the arrest was made after she refused to turn over her phone, showing it was merely a pretext for which to justify a warrantless search.
"Guessing" that the student did something to warrant an arrest when we have the complaint in front of us (and making no mention of such behavior) is downright bizarre.
Bizarre, but quite common. Most people, when presented with some sort of outrageous action by authorities, will rationalize some explanation where the authorities were correct, and refuse to be swayed from it. That's one way authorities get away with as much as they do.
1) You don't need to be considered a "public figure" to be the legitmate target of satire. The "public figure" part of libel means that a "public figure" must prove that the defamation was actually malicious. Satire is not defamation for reasons other than lack of actual malice.
2) Calling someone a "douchebag" isn't defamation because it's a meaningless insult. No reasonable person would believe that the person being called a "douchebag" was, literally, a feminine hygiene appliance, so there's no false statement of fact.
We know them as rules lawyers: the people who try and find convoluted, novel ways to evade the rules without exactly breaking them. Courts are real familiar with them, and over the centuries have developed lots of ways to deal with them.
The EULA itself is already a case of rules-lawyering. It's trying to avoid those irritating steps normally necessary to forming a contract, in particular both (actual) agreement and consideration, by holding the use of purchased software hostage until you indicate "agreement". Either the act of clicking "agree" means nothing, or various ways to use the software without clicking "agree" really do mean you aren't bound by the EULA.
I hold to the principle that the EULA is meaningless, and clicking on "Agree" signifies agreement to the EULA like clicking on "Yes" to the quit box in Wolfenstein 3D signifies you agree that you are a wimp. But if the courts want to pretend that clicking "Agree" actually is agreement, they can hardly complain about rules-lawyering if someone avoids clicking "Agree".
However, the vast majority of people, poor or rich, can post bail through bail bonds, since in general, the vast majority of crimes don't involve people who are very likely to run away.
Bail in this case is $5,000,000. A bail bond would cost $500,000.
When you use *67 to block a caller id, the caller id is still sent, but with a privacy flag turned on so that the _end point_ equipment can conveniently not display it.
It's not THAT trusting. The Caller ID is blocked at the terminating CO, at least for ordinary lines. PBX lines may be different. Otherwise a simple firmware hack to the caller ID box would unblock things -- and we'd have had a Slashdot story about that by now.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple marketing never admits to them, but Apple does sometimes find and fix problems. Note the re-appearance of Firewire on the latest MacBook. The increasing robustness of AppleShare when the server is disconnected in OS X (terrible in 10.1, usable in 10.3, almost transparent in 10.5). The existence of Boot Camp.
On that note, it looks like the data doesn't go back far enough to provide any evidence for the scenario in Clarke's "The Star"
Legitimate banks do it, but they shouldn't. At least usbank.com isn't asking for the password on the unsecured site. But just because they do it doesn't mean you should put up with it -- https://www.usbank.com also works, and really is secure.
If you want your scripts to be compatible with just about every Unix, you still need to stick with /bin/sh (yes, I know, it's a compatibility mode). If you don't, might as well use a better scripting language.
1) Write a flame-filled letter decrying the idiocy of all but one of your co-workers. Conclude it with "As for me, I deserved to be fired because I was so stupid I left my workstation unlocked when I left."
2) Write whatever you want, but translate to EBCDIC before you send it. (not recommended when leaving IBM).
The letter asks for repayments to be sent to Fargo, North Dakota. If I got a letter purporting to be from my former company asking me to send money to a totally different state from that where I had worked and that where the company was based, I'd be more than a bit suspicious. This is apparently legit, but I wonder if any employees thought it was a scam (a scam by other than Microsoft, anyway)...
1) There's still the budget issue
2) Just how many unemployed people do you think there are who are able and willing to do the work?
The home user part is just a distraction; if it actually gets to the notice of lawmakers they'll write a weak-ass exemption (which the FBI will immediately figure a way around when they want to nail a home user). The whole concept of requiring people to keep records to make the police's job easier is a bad idea in the first place. It screams "police state".
I get to say it's software because it IS software. I go down to Best Buy, plunk down cash for a box which contains a CD. That CD is (or contains) a copy of a software program. I now own that copy, which Best Buy had owned before. If you don't agree... what exactly is it that I own, between the time I purchase the box and the time I attempt to install the software?
The courts are not unanimous on this, but my position is not wholly unsupported, either -- SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc, for instance.
Which is why the judge should make up some stuff to balance things out.
"Jury will disregard that remark, and also the allegation that witness for the prosecution was seen fucking a goat."
What they're allegedly doing is scummy, but not extortion. Or rather, it's only extortion if Yelp itself is generating the negative reviews. Accepting cash to remove legitimate negative reviews is just slimy.
No, I'm not. I'm purchasing a copy of the software. The "license" story is a fiction that the software makers use to try to retain rights beyond those copyright gives them, but it doesn't really hold up. They can't on the one hand treat software as a commodity which they can pass on to distributors who then pass it on to retailers by moving media around using standard contracts for sales of goods, and on the other treat it as a licensing transaction between themselves and the end user (who may not even have been in contact, let alone formed a contract).
This would be a great attitude to have if it wasn't based on a false assumption. The first time a complete idiot calls you at 3am you're going to have second thoughts about it. The fifth time the same idiot calls you about the SAME issue, which you explained the last four times, and elaborated the documentation each time, you're going to disconnect the phone, write nothing but cryptic notes in the future, and mutter "if it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand".
There's no warrant, only a police report. Why was a search necessary? Obviously, they wanted to do one, but what legal justification was there for one? Having a phone isn't, in itself, illegal (or they could have arrested her for that, instead of that old catch-all of "disorderly conduct"). What crime had she committed to justify an arrest? You're probably right that if she'd given up the phone at the start there would have been no arrest; that only demonstrates that she'd committed no crime and the arrest was a pretext for a warrantless search and seizure.
Pascal's Wager sucks. There's no more reason to believe in Pascal's God who punishes disbelievers than my theoretical God who created the earth, but thinks he erased all the evidence that it was anything but natural, and gets VERY cross when people believe in a god or Gods anyway.
This works on an individual level, sort-of. But on an individual level you don't have much effect either way. It doesn't work on a larger scale. If governments put in place the sort of carbon-reduction measures that various doomsday scientists have been clamoring for, they will have a very significant cost, in freedom, in quality of life and (mostly for the poor, naturally) in lives.
And, there's always the equivalent to my believer-punishing God -- Larry Niven's "Falling Angels" scenario, where anthropogenic warming is actually preventing the Earth's entry into an ice age. Yeah, it's very unlikely, but it shows that it _does_ matter if climate change is real.
Actually, that last bit is in dispute, if you RTFS.
If you feel comfortable doing linear extrapolations on a highly nonlinear system, anyway.
If you don't implement the security, you're not secure. The author claims that some browsers don't check to see that an intermediate certificate is actually authorized to sign other certificates. So naturally there's a simple attack based on that, but it doesn't really show a flaw in SSL.
The author also complains about companies which post secure forms on non-secure pages, which is a valid complaint but is also a case of "You're using it wrong" rather than a problem with the protocols. Most users are never going to check for the lock (or whatever), so the basic problem will be with us forever, but banks don't have to screw it up by putting login forms on non-secure pages normally. Yes, it's convenient to have a login on a home page, and yes it would consume too many resources to make every home page hit into an https hit, but security ought to count for something, particularly with a bank.
In this case, the only side of the story we have is that of the police officer. Yet some people are basing their opinion that the arrest was justified on the assumption of additional bad behavior on the part of the arrestee.
Don't be silly. They'll just keep delaying and piling on charges. Then they'll offer a plea bargain. He'll take it, because the alternative is rotting in jail for several MORE months, waiting for trial -- and possibly losing at the end because a jury is always a crapshoot.
It's pretty clear there was no justification for the search. The disorderly conduct charge was invented specifically to "justify" the search as a search incident to arrest.
Wisconsin law provides "Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor."
Texting in class doesn't fall under any of the listed categories, so already you have to use the catch-all "otherwise disorderly". But what really makes it clear is that no arrest was made after the conduct was described and investigated. Instead, the arrest was made after she refused to turn over her phone, showing it was merely a pretext for which to justify a warrantless search.
Bizarre, but quite common. Most people, when presented with some sort of outrageous action by authorities, will rationalize some explanation where the authorities were correct, and refuse to be swayed from it. That's one way authorities get away with as much as they do.
1) You don't need to be considered a "public figure" to be the legitmate target of satire. The "public figure" part of libel means that a "public figure" must prove that the defamation was actually malicious. Satire is not defamation for reasons other than lack of actual malice.
2) Calling someone a "douchebag" isn't defamation because it's a meaningless insult. No reasonable person would believe that the person being called a "douchebag" was, literally, a feminine hygiene appliance, so there's no false statement of fact.
The EULA itself is already a case of rules-lawyering. It's trying to avoid those irritating steps normally necessary to forming a contract, in particular both (actual) agreement and consideration, by holding the use of purchased software hostage until you indicate "agreement". Either the act of clicking "agree" means nothing, or various ways to use the software without clicking "agree" really do mean you aren't bound by the EULA.
I hold to the principle that the EULA is meaningless, and clicking on "Agree" signifies agreement to the EULA like clicking on "Yes" to the quit box in Wolfenstein 3D signifies you agree that you are a wimp. But if the courts want to pretend that clicking "Agree" actually is agreement, they can hardly complain about rules-lawyering if someone avoids clicking "Agree".
Bail in this case is $5,000,000. A bail bond would cost $500,000.
So much for the Eighth Amendment.
It's not THAT trusting. The Caller ID is blocked at the terminating CO, at least for ordinary lines. PBX lines may be different. Otherwise a simple firmware hack to the caller ID box would unblock things -- and we'd have had a Slashdot story about that by now.