The issue is that nobody is willing to pay for high-end tablets.
It's not that nobody is willing to pay for high-end tablets, it's that not enough are willing to pay.
The same phenomenon has affected many other products. You can either buy a low-end and cheap product or an ultra-high-end and very expensive version.
The pool of natural buyers of mid-range devices (the middle class) is being hollowed out with increasing wealth disparity to the point that the middle class do not buy enough mid-range products for it to be economically viable to make mid-range products.
The government can't (or should not) pass a law that requires collection of data, then claim that people have no expectation of privacy in that data.
What if the government passed a law requiring you to upload the contents of your computer to a massive database, then decided that it didn't need a warrant to access that same data?
If the Supreme Court allows this, it shows that the justices are themselves corrupt.
That's what they would like you to believe. In fact Republicans stand for increasing the wealth and power of a small number of ultra-wealthy people.
They stand for the taxpayers subsidizing the wealthy. They stand for destruction of the environment. They stand for denying basic healthcare to the poor. They stand for using the resources of the government to develop their interests abroad.
I gave an example of a pizza-delivery guy observing a crime (such as child-abuse), while performing a delivery. It is perfectly ethical for him to report it. Moreover, he can even offer to help the police by, for example, wearing a wire or a hidden camera during the next visit to the same house. As long as he sincerely believes, he is helping end a real crime, his actions aren't only ethical, they are commendable!
So let me ask you this, who are the criminals in Brazil? Who are the righteous people who should be helped?
If you choose to voluntarily help "law enforcement", then you need to be certain that the people you are helping are really enforcing the laws in a fair and impartial manner and that those laws are not designed to aid corruption. It's very easy to say who is who in your example, but in Brazil? Not so much.
That depends on where you are. Where I live, trying to hail taxis generally doesn't work.
While it may not work in practice, I expect that there is a class of taxis that can legally stop to pick up passengers without a prior arrangement and another class which requires a prior arrangement. Uber fits into the latter class.
This is based on a ridiculous ruling that phone numbers dialed are not private information because they're voluntarily shared with a third party (the phone company) and therefore don't have am expectation of privacy. The case is Smith v. Maryland (1979). Basically they ruled that because phone companies keep records of the numbers dialed that users shouldn't expect any privacy and therefore no warrant is required. This ruling could easily be extended to content with that same logic
Even if you accept that ruling, the data that is collected and handed over should be limited to IP addresses that I connect to. DNS names should not be included, since they are content, not metadata. If I am using Google nameservers, all the ISP should hand over was that I connected to 8.8.8.8 on port 53, then I connected to an IP address on port 80.
The USA had this type of setup for a while but the legacy companies played enough games with it to make it uneconomic and then were able to get the provisions requiring access to existing wires weakened to the point that they might as well not exist.
Ultimately, the problem was that the legacy companies were able to retain ownership of the last mile infrastructure and offer their own Internet and phone services using those wires.
That depends. In New York, for example, there are three types of licenses, yellow, blue, and black.
I realize now that there is a terminology issue. I consider (wrongly) Taxis to only include your Yellow and blue cabs. I don't really consider the "Black" cabs to be taxis. Instead, I would use the term "private hire car".
Your use of "taxi" is very clever in this regard. But really, the question that should be posed is whether Uber is a hackney cab (can be hailed) or a private hire service. The licensing is different for these types of services, and the use of the word "taxi" is very imprecise and leads to absurd results.
One should not ask if Uber is a taxi, but whether it meets the definition of a hackney cab or a private hire cab. Then, one must ask if Uber is operating legally as one or the other of these definitions (it's entirely possible that it operates legally as a private hire service).
But I'd be happy to hear your proposals on how to correct flaws in such a system... Raise awareness, perhaps? Print buttons, colored ribbons, and bumper stickers: "Abolish Rule #36"?
Here is mine: require the judge to enquire into the factual basis of the amount of the claim and then limit any award to a reasonable amount, instead of just accepting the amount claimed by the plaintiff.
A man flying a 1947 J3 cub landed in a farmer's pasture without permission. The farmer called the police and drove his truck in front of the J3 to stop he from taking off before the police showed up. The pilot took off and hit the van. He sued Piper Aircraft because his 1947 did not meet modern safety standards and won!
Got a citation for that? Because it sounds like an urban legend and my simple Google searches did not find any reference to it.
I fear a loser-pays system because you can be in the right, and you can still lose a case. You can still get burned. It's a risk, and sometimes risks pay off, and sometimes they don't.
The trick is to have an appropriate definition of "loser". What if party A sues party B, and party B offers to settle for a certain amount. A won't accept this and sues. Ultimately the court awards an amount that was less than the amount originally offered by B.
Who "won"? B had to pay A, but had already offered to pay more. I think that in the UK, B "won", so A would have to pay B's fees.
And I agreed the Windows 7 EULA, not the Windows 10 one. What if I disagree with the Windows 10 one? Are they trying to trick me into agreeing by other methods (i.e. automatically upgrading me?), giving me no reasonable option, etc.? That's basically duress.
You think that Microsoft has not got its legal ducks in a row? I seriously doubt that. It's possible that either the Windows 7 EULA includes sufficient terms for Microsoft to do the upgrade, or, somewhere along the line of updates from Microsoft, hidden in the small print, there were terms that allow the Windows 10 upgrade.
It might be more interesting to look at the legality of this in the EU, where contract trickery is not so well tolerated by the courts.
The strangest part of the article is "it is unclear what specific law Mr. Ahmed was breaking, as there are no regulations on digital currencies in Egypt."
Is this meant to be a joke? Have you not noticed that there is a dictatorship in power in Egypt and there isn't a functioning rule of law.
The only crime in that type of society is "upsetting the people in power".
It's not that Microsoft doesn't care. Microsoft cares. The software is working as designed. Microsoft would be upset if the software did not work in this fashion.
Did you mean that Microsoft cares about its users? When has Microsoft ever done that?
Slashdot Mirror
Whoops, should be $20k.
FTFY.
And people decry slippery slope arguments.
James Hacker: Was 1967 a particularly bad winter?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: No, a marvellous winter. We lost no end of embarrassing files.
It's not that nobody is willing to pay for high-end tablets, it's that not enough are willing to pay.
The same phenomenon has affected many other products. You can either buy a low-end and cheap product or an ultra-high-end and very expensive version.
The pool of natural buyers of mid-range devices (the middle class) is being hollowed out with increasing wealth disparity to the point that the middle class do not buy enough mid-range products for it to be economically viable to make mid-range products.
The government can't (or should not) pass a law that requires collection of data, then claim that people have no expectation of privacy in that data.
What if the government passed a law requiring you to upload the contents of your computer to a massive database, then decided that it didn't need a warrant to access that same data?
If the Supreme Court allows this, it shows that the justices are themselves corrupt.
And Paleofuture.
That's what they would like you to believe. In fact Republicans stand for increasing the wealth and power of a small number of ultra-wealthy people.
They stand for the taxpayers subsidizing the wealthy. They stand for destruction of the environment. They stand for denying basic healthcare to the poor. They stand for using the resources of the government to develop their interests abroad.
So let me ask you this, who are the criminals in Brazil? Who are the righteous people who should be helped?
If you choose to voluntarily help "law enforcement", then you need to be certain that the people you are helping are really enforcing the laws in a fair and impartial manner and that those laws are not designed to aid corruption. It's very easy to say who is who in your example, but in Brazil? Not so much.
This. Web apps can't easily upload and datamine my contact list, photos, etc..
While it may not work in practice, I expect that there is a class of taxis that can legally stop to pick up passengers without a prior arrangement and another class which requires a prior arrangement. Uber fits into the latter class.
Even if you accept that ruling, the data that is collected and handed over should be limited to IP addresses that I connect to. DNS names should not be included, since they are content, not metadata. If I am using Google nameservers, all the ISP should hand over was that I connected to 8.8.8.8 on port 53, then I connected to an IP address on port 80.
The USA had this type of setup for a while but the legacy companies played enough games with it to make it uneconomic and then were able to get the provisions requiring access to existing wires weakened to the point that they might as well not exist.
Ultimately, the problem was that the legacy companies were able to retain ownership of the last mile infrastructure and offer their own Internet and phone services using those wires.
I realize now that there is a terminology issue. I consider (wrongly) Taxis to only include your Yellow and blue cabs. I don't really consider the "Black" cabs to be taxis. Instead, I would use the term "private hire car".
Your use of "taxi" is very clever in this regard. But really, the question that should be posed is whether Uber is a hackney cab (can be hailed) or a private hire service. The licensing is different for these types of services, and the use of the word "taxi" is very imprecise and leads to absurd results.
One should not ask if Uber is a taxi, but whether it meets the definition of a hackney cab or a private hire cab. Then, one must ask if Uber is operating legally as one or the other of these definitions (it's entirely possible that it operates legally as a private hire service).
With Android Marshmallow, I can deny access to contacts yet still allow the app to run.
Nice false premise you have there.
Taxis can be hailed as they are driving past. No need for a service to connect you to the driver. In the case of Uber, you are pre-arranging a ride.
Obtaining the data without permission could be seen as a violation of the CFAA. I doubt they want to risk criminal prosecution.
And you hope that it is only the old versions were "absolutely full of pediofiddlerists".
Here is mine: require the judge to enquire into the factual basis of the amount of the claim and then limit any award to a reasonable amount, instead of just accepting the amount claimed by the plaintiff.
Got a citation for that? Because it sounds like an urban legend and my simple Google searches did not find any reference to it.
The trick is to have an appropriate definition of "loser". What if party A sues party B, and party B offers to settle for a certain amount. A won't accept this and sues. Ultimately the court awards an amount that was less than the amount originally offered by B.
Who "won"? B had to pay A, but had already offered to pay more. I think that in the UK, B "won", so A would have to pay B's fees.
You think that Microsoft has not got its legal ducks in a row? I seriously doubt that. It's possible that either the Windows 7 EULA includes sufficient terms for Microsoft to do the upgrade, or, somewhere along the line of updates from Microsoft, hidden in the small print, there were terms that allow the Windows 10 upgrade.
It might be more interesting to look at the legality of this in the EU, where contract trickery is not so well tolerated by the courts.
Is this meant to be a joke? Have you not noticed that there is a dictatorship in power in Egypt and there isn't a functioning rule of law.
The only crime in that type of society is "upsetting the people in power".
I guess that you don't get much sleep ('ZZ's) at work?
It's not that Microsoft doesn't care. Microsoft cares. The software is working as designed. Microsoft would be upset if the software did not work in this fashion.
Did you mean that Microsoft cares about its users? When has Microsoft ever done that?