You're right--just trawl the logs for people that have read about illegal activity $X (hell, why not search the homes of those who used Google to search for fourth amendment (may it rest in piece) case law), and then get a warrant. Whether they find $X or something else doesn't seem to matter, because when there's a computer involved.
What it has certainly done for me is to make me feel like less of a paranoid geek when going through the trouble to insert a layer of indirection between me and what I'm surfing.
Including prosecutors. Do you want to spend five figures on a lawyer defending yourself because some fuckwit D.A. wants to make a name for himself busting "w1r3l3ss h@x0rz"?
I haven't, but the manufacturing costs can't be *that* high, particularly given the price drop that Apple did right after release. The unlocked phones are likely being sold in other companies at a *surcharge* rather than the locked ones here with a *subsidy*. Of course, surcharge(X) is mathematically equivalent to discount(not(X)), so it's hard to really tell. For me, certainly, AT&T as a carrier is a non-starter (think illegal wiretapping) and the price is too dear regardless. I would give $300-$400 for an unlocked equivalent that I could put whatever SIM into and have it just work on an existing voice/data plan.
Is there a "don't bother me again?" I won't buy an iPhone as long as they're tethered and unsubsidized (full price WITH a contract?!), but I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that the updates were pretty much forced if the user wanted to keep the ability to sync with iTunes.
I'd buy that if Apple made it easy to refuse the updates. But they don't, which implies that even it if wasn't deliberate (I personally believe it was deliberate, and they didn't realize the backlash they would get, then backpedaled), they certainly felt a little Schadenfreude when those with hacked iPhones had them break.
If we're going to talk about courts, the preponderance of the evidence is that it's deliberate disablement. (The debate of whether it's "bricking" or not is purely semantic--to an end user, the result is the same.) Otherwise, they'd provide a checkbox for users to turn off updates.
And all of that space and its contents could become inaccessible in a nanosecond if Google received a DMCA or spam complaint about the user, the user forgot his or her password, or Google just plain decided to shut off one's account. Having a local copy is insurance against losing one's information in one of those cases.
No, but the government building something using Linux isn't the same as the government *commissioning* Linux (too late for that). The work on top of Linux that the government commissioned would be public domain, not Linux. You're confusing existing copyrights with the commissioning of a new work paid for by the taxpayer.
That's a good point, but I think that it would be unlikely that the government would commission a work that would have otherwise been under the GPL--so unlikely that I would accept that risk. And the whole "GPL depends on copyright thing" is because the GPL is a brilliant hack *against* copyright--for the GPL to be invalid, so must be copyright.
True -- it's an icky loophole that the taxpayers can be shafted out of what they paid for by the government using contractors as a level of indirection. Works produced by contractors for the U.S. government should be considered "works of the U.S. government" and thus also automatically in the public domain as well, but there's a snowball's chance that'll ever happen given the endemic corruption of both major parties and the judiciary.
What's stopping the timing critical part from being handled by the "bag of device drivers" while the presentation is handled by a browser? Granted, this won't work for applications where real-time display is of paramount importance, such as in your aircraft example or in a controller for a surgical laser, but it will work just fine for Grandma printing pictures of her grandkids out from her storage in the cloud. And it'll have the added bonus (I know I never let this go) of end-to-end DRM and surveillance of any data being processed (the device driver for the printer printer could even refuse to print images not signed by the cloud application, preventing its use in "counter-government propaganda").
I think it was Marc Andreessen who talked about operating systems being reduced to "bags of device drivers" -- that does seem to be the direction we're headed. And as a sidebar, TCPA/Palladium locked-down glorified terminals to web apps and consumer media that don't store data locally for the vast majority would suit TPTB just fine.
Right--that's why the Supreme Court has upheld State laws that deny their citizens rights under the Constitution, because the Constitution only applies Federally. Oh, wait.
If you wouldn't mind sharing, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would want to know what credit card company misused that information (not that they don't all probably do it, but I'd just as soon avoid the one that definitely did it).
Take the push for socialized medicine in the US. Once the US gov't is providing your healthcare, don't they then logically have a say in what you can and cannot do? You can't smoke a cigarette or have a drink - too bad for your health. You can't go parasailing - way too dangerous!
We already have the logic that "society" pays for health care being used to justify assaults on individual liberty like seat belt laws and excessive taxation of everything from cigarettes and alcohol to sugar and saturated fats, and it doesn't have anything to do with "socialized medicine," which Americans except for the extremely wealthy are already subject to, except that insurance companies get a rake off the top.
Re:Do you accept these terms? Only option is "Next
on
UK Report Slams EULAs
·
· Score: 1
That, and there's no consideration, as the buyer has already paid for the computer and the software.
We barely whimpered as it became cheap enough for them to track us. It will be interesting to see how they react when it becomes cheap enough that we can afford to track them.
One answer (assuming they don't just outlaw it like some states outlaw radar detectors) is that they'll create fake entities to poison the data. I've thought a little bit about the "smart mob" radar trap database before, and figured all the boys in blue would sign up and mark thousands of decoy radar traps until the service was useless. One way around that attack would be subscription fees with fee waivers for information judged reliable past a certain threshold--if you launch it, let me know, so I can sign up:).
And they could provide data points that would help individuals compute satellite vulnerability windows now that satellite data are being used in domestic law enforcement (i.e. to spy on Americans).
Even though they should be, vinyl albums, cassettes, and CDs aren't license tokens that give you the right to hunt down a new copy. The recording industry insists that if you want a digital copy, you need to buy one--and also insists that even if you take the trouble to pump your phonograph or cassette player through your line-in and format shift that way, that you're committing copyright infringement. That said, I think this is a publicity stunt to generate sales from the nostalgia crowd who doesn't use TPB et al anyway, rather than a genuine effort to interdict traffic in YMCA and Macho Man.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right--just trawl the logs for people that have read about illegal activity $X (hell, why not search the homes of those who used Google to search for fourth amendment (may it rest in piece) case law), and then get a warrant. Whether they find $X or something else doesn't seem to matter, because when there's a computer involved. What it has certainly done for me is to make me feel like less of a paranoid geek when going through the trouble to insert a layer of indirection between me and what I'm surfing.
Of course, they might have stumbled over your pirated copy of Photoshop, so even though they didn't find any child porn, they still get a bust.
Including prosecutors. Do you want to spend five figures on a lawyer defending yourself because some fuckwit D.A. wants to make a name for himself busting "w1r3l3ss h@x0rz"?
Any monthly subscription they offer is going to be DRMd. Just because Apple offered up some non-DRMd tracks on iTMS doesn't make the OP wrong.
I haven't, but the manufacturing costs can't be *that* high, particularly given the price drop that Apple did right after release. The unlocked phones are likely being sold in other companies at a *surcharge* rather than the locked ones here with a *subsidy*. Of course, surcharge(X) is mathematically equivalent to discount(not(X)), so it's hard to really tell. For me, certainly, AT&T as a carrier is a non-starter (think illegal wiretapping) and the price is too dear regardless. I would give $300-$400 for an unlocked equivalent that I could put whatever SIM into and have it just work on an existing voice/data plan.
Is there a "don't bother me again?" I won't buy an iPhone as long as they're tethered and unsubsidized (full price WITH a contract?!), but I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that the updates were pretty much forced if the user wanted to keep the ability to sync with iTunes.
I'd buy that if Apple made it easy to refuse the updates. But they don't, which implies that even it if wasn't deliberate (I personally believe it was deliberate, and they didn't realize the backlash they would get, then backpedaled), they certainly felt a little Schadenfreude when those with hacked iPhones had them break.
If we're going to talk about courts, the preponderance of the evidence is that it's deliberate disablement. (The debate of whether it's "bricking" or not is purely semantic--to an end user, the result is the same.) Otherwise, they'd provide a checkbox for users to turn off updates.
Has it been proven that it wasn't?
"Unsupported" != "Deliberate device disablement via updates for hacked devices"
And all of that space and its contents could become inaccessible in a nanosecond if Google received a DMCA or spam complaint about the user, the user forgot his or her password, or Google just plain decided to shut off one's account. Having a local copy is insurance against losing one's information in one of those cases.
No, but the government building something using Linux isn't the same as the government *commissioning* Linux (too late for that). The work on top of Linux that the government commissioned would be public domain, not Linux. You're confusing existing copyrights with the commissioning of a new work paid for by the taxpayer.
That's a good point, but I think that it would be unlikely that the government would commission a work that would have otherwise been under the GPL--so unlikely that I would accept that risk. And the whole "GPL depends on copyright thing" is because the GPL is a brilliant hack *against* copyright--for the GPL to be invalid, so must be copyright.
True -- it's an icky loophole that the taxpayers can be shafted out of what they paid for by the government using contractors as a level of indirection. Works produced by contractors for the U.S. government should be considered "works of the U.S. government" and thus also automatically in the public domain as well, but there's a snowball's chance that'll ever happen given the endemic corruption of both major parties and the judiciary.
What's stopping the timing critical part from being handled by the "bag of device drivers" while the presentation is handled by a browser? Granted, this won't work for applications where real-time display is of paramount importance, such as in your aircraft example or in a controller for a surgical laser, but it will work just fine for Grandma printing pictures of her grandkids out from her storage in the cloud. And it'll have the added bonus (I know I never let this go) of end-to-end DRM and surveillance of any data being processed (the device driver for the printer printer could even refuse to print images not signed by the cloud application, preventing its use in "counter-government propaganda").
I think it was Marc Andreessen who talked about operating systems being reduced to "bags of device drivers" -- that does seem to be the direction we're headed. And as a sidebar, TCPA/Palladium locked-down glorified terminals to web apps and consumer media that don't store data locally for the vast majority would suit TPTB just fine.
Right--that's why the Supreme Court has upheld State laws that deny their citizens rights under the Constitution, because the Constitution only applies Federally. Oh, wait.
Think of it as cover traffic.
If you wouldn't mind sharing, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would want to know what credit card company misused that information (not that they don't all probably do it, but I'd just as soon avoid the one that definitely did it).
That, and there's no consideration, as the buyer has already paid for the computer and the software.
And they could provide data points that would help individuals compute satellite vulnerability windows now that satellite data are being used in domestic law enforcement (i.e. to spy on Americans).
Even though they should be, vinyl albums, cassettes, and CDs aren't license tokens that give you the right to hunt down a new copy. The recording industry insists that if you want a digital copy, you need to buy one--and also insists that even if you take the trouble to pump your phonograph or cassette player through your line-in and format shift that way, that you're committing copyright infringement. That said, I think this is a publicity stunt to generate sales from the nostalgia crowd who doesn't use TPB et al anyway, rather than a genuine effort to interdict traffic in YMCA and Macho Man.
"Only for Windows" != free, that was the point of my original post.