Frank J. Kane v. The State of New Jersey, 1916, The right to travel is not the same as driving a car. There is no right to drive a car. Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, 1999, There is no "fundamental right to drive".
1999, 9th circuit court of appeals rules there is no "fundamental right to drive" in Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Is that enough, or do you need more proof?
Found a supreme court ruling from 1916: "Frank J. Kane v. The State of New Jersey" which upheld the state's right to charge licensing fees for driver's licenses which in turn implies that driving is a privilege, not a right. Of course, IANAL.
To name one: "or when his or her privilege to drive is suspended" from RCW 46.20.342 in Washington state. The assumption in the law is that it is a privilege and not a right. You of course have the right to drive and text on your own property, just not on the roads which are built, owned and operated by the people.
Besides, an iota of reflection will get you to the fact without looking at any laws. There is a real distinction between basic human rights and rights of a citizen. Basic human rights are those which you have by virtue of the fact that you are human. Things like access to food/water/shelter. Freedom to move around. Freedom to own property. Citizen rights are those rights which you have by virtue of being a citizen of some particular country, like the right to vote in a particular election--so a person living in Washington state has no basic human right to vote in a gubernatorial election in Florida. Obviously driving a car is not a right you get simply by virtue of being human. People need to stop overusing the term "basic human right" to mean "whatever I think I should be allowed to do." There are plenty of things that you have the right to do which are not basic human rights.
You have no "basic human right" to drive a car and therefore have no basic human right to drive a car and hold a phone or even, for that matter, to drive a car and talk to the passenger next to you. You are licensed to drive a car, and that entails tacit approval of whatever road & safety regulations currently stand at the time you get behind the wheel. Currently that license does allow you to talk to the passenger next to you, but even if it didn't it wouldn't be rights infringement, because you HAVE NO RIGHT TO DRIVE A CAR. I am all for regulating cell phone use to the point that people cannot hold a phone while driving since a police officer on a parked motorcycle on the side of the road cannot tell the difference between such and texting, and it is far more important to keep people from texting while driving than it is to allow them to idly handle their phones while driving. I think this reasonably extends to Google Glass as well.
"science is all about probing the truths of nature via experimentation"
That is the narrow more recent definition of science. The broad definition has only to do with reliable and reasoned study of an area, which is why mathematics, computer science, library science, political science, etc. are all called sciences. The scientific method based definition is only one type of science.
Dijkstra said something about computer science being as much about computers as astronomy is about telescopes. Programming is a necessary skill for doing computer science (although, that may be somewhat debatable in some areas of computer science, like many areas of theory), but it is not a subset of computer science. Just as operating a telescope is not a subset of astronomy.
Unless your tweets are protected there is very little obvious reason to use https for twitter, since they would all be public anyway, and the login does use https.
Your employer has the right to look at whatever you do with _their_ computers. They cannot come to your home and look at your gmail account or use your company email password to get into your gmail account. This is obviously different. Your gmail account is private in that sense.
I think this comparison should only be made alongside when people are beginning relationships. For instance, perhaps there is a sharp rise in breakups after Valentine's Day because people are feeling sentimental before VD or don't want to be alone and so are more likely to begin a romantic relationship shortly before--couple that with the conventional wisdom that most relationships don't last 5 weeks and it seems obvious that the breakup rate would be highest just a few weeks after Valentine's Day. Or, potentially, you might find that those breaking up around spring break very quickly began new relationships suggesting that they were cutting ties with their SOs prior to spring break so that they can "have a good time" and "meet some new people" on Spring Break.
Who cares? This isn't censorship. They just don't want to get a bunch of complaints from your grandmother when she searches for "penitence" and after hunt-and-pecking "p-e-n-i" gets something that upsets her. You can still search for whatever you want, they just aren't going to automatically guess you mean something dirty because it might offend you greatly if you don't, which would be a PR nightmare. The converse is not true. It doesn't offend anybody (except maybe people who are rabidly-irrational about anything that could possibly be construed as censorship) to get benign results when searching for something dirty as long as they can get to the results by pressing the "Enter" key.
I wonder if the opposite is also true. Perhaps those with lower testosterone tend to accept mergers & acquisition offers when it is not in their best interest.
The website is being hosted by a private company--Rackspace--which has a vested interest in its own self image and no obligation to host a site on its privately owned servers unless it has a contractual obligation to do so. Doesn't matter what loophole they put in their contract, they could have put "if we decide we don't like your site we will take it down," if they wanted, and if this site is indeed in violation of their contract, however loopholey it feels, they have every right to take it down. Nobody has a right to have their site hosted on someone else's server.
That said, the media is making a non-story a story. This is one crazy guy with his 50 crazy friends burning some books. He isn't a spokesperson for any organization other than the 50 crazy friends. If the Pope or Billy Graham or Richard Dawkins or some political figure decided to do this, then it might have merit as a story, but as it stands this is a very tiny molehill being made into a really huge mountain.
'Do you think Doritos would be allowed to sell bags as "up to a pound" when they averaged 9oz and some had quite a bit less?'
I don't see why not. Isn't that exactly what w00t does with its bag of random stuff. At least, I don't think it is false advertising. They said "up to" not "averaging" so anyone who speaks english and has an iota of mathematical sense should know that they aren't going to see those speeds.
That said, I hate these companies. I just think we should complain about all the legitimate things they give us to complain about rather than engineer a problem using a bad understanding of pseudo-mathematical terms.
Oh, and the point of all this being that the OP wants to be able to jailbreak his phone through his browser even though any method of making changes to the OS via a webpage represents a serious security hole in the browser.
"There is a jailbreak application that prompts the user before downloading any PDF via the Safari browser, meaning that you have to allow the browser to download any exploit."
I, at least, read this as saying that instead of fixing the problem the jailbreak application that he would prefer Apple mimic, simply prompts a user every time they download a PDF so they have to allow the browser to "download the exploit." That means that the exploit is still in the PDF being downloaded, its just that a website can't secretly send you to a PDF when you think you are getting a webpage.
Sorry about that... I think I was reading into your post what I wanted to read, since I had already read several posts above saying exactly what I thought you were saying. Doh. (Inserts foot in mouth =D).
WHAT? The real security issue is that a website could own your device. Who cares that jailbreakers were using this to do something they wanted to do to their own devices, it could just as easily have been malicious.
You said: Once they do that, these vulnerabilities will no longer have a beneficial side to them.
I'm sorry, but what the heck are you talking about? I can think of a ton of vulnerabilities that would have a "beneficial" side to them. Say, for instance, a website were to install a key logger and capture all your passwords, or credit card numbers, or whatever... This vulnerability is far worse than simply allowing people to jailbreak their phones. It gives some other entity remote code execution to your device and that is pretty much the worst sort of vulnerability and Apple is right to patch it as quickly as possible. Period.
So what you are saying is that Apple should leave the hole allowing a PDF to do remote code execution (which no PDF reader should allow), then they should harass all users every time they download a PDF to tell them it might have the ability to own their device (since they decided to leave the huge security hole) and all this just so that people who want to jailbreak their phones don't have to plug them into a computer via USB? You were kidding, right?
I have the opposite approach. Classes where powerpoint is used are almost always worthless and you might as well just download the slides and read them on your own time. Thoughtful use of a piece of chalk can explain complex and abstract ideas in depth at a pace that can easily be followed. I only take classes where powerpoint is not used, if I can get away with it (which isn't easy in my field).
Slashdot Mirror
If I post a link to this /. summary to facebook will my friends stop posting political posts? Or is that covered too?
Frank J. Kane v. The State of New Jersey, 1916, The right to travel is not the same as driving a car. There is no right to drive a car.
Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, 1999, There is no "fundamental right to drive".
1999, 9th circuit court of appeals rules there is no "fundamental right to drive" in Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Is that enough, or do you need more proof?
Found a supreme court ruling from 1916: "Frank J. Kane v. The State of New Jersey" which upheld the state's right to charge licensing fees for driver's licenses which in turn implies that driving is a privilege, not a right. Of course, IANAL.
To name one: "or when his or her privilege to drive is suspended" from RCW 46.20.342 in Washington state. The assumption in the law is that it is a privilege and not a right. You of course have the right to drive and text on your own property, just not on the roads which are built, owned and operated by the people.
Besides, an iota of reflection will get you to the fact without looking at any laws. There is a real distinction between basic human rights and rights of a citizen. Basic human rights are those which you have by virtue of the fact that you are human. Things like access to food/water/shelter. Freedom to move around. Freedom to own property. Citizen rights are those rights which you have by virtue of being a citizen of some particular country, like the right to vote in a particular election--so a person living in Washington state has no basic human right to vote in a gubernatorial election in Florida. Obviously driving a car is not a right you get simply by virtue of being human. People need to stop overusing the term "basic human right" to mean "whatever I think I should be allowed to do." There are plenty of things that you have the right to do which are not basic human rights.
You have no "basic human right" to drive a car and therefore have no basic human right to drive a car and hold a phone or even, for that matter, to drive a car and talk to the passenger next to you. You are licensed to drive a car, and that entails tacit approval of whatever road & safety regulations currently stand at the time you get behind the wheel. Currently that license does allow you to talk to the passenger next to you, but even if it didn't it wouldn't be rights infringement, because you HAVE NO RIGHT TO DRIVE A CAR. I am all for regulating cell phone use to the point that people cannot hold a phone while driving since a police officer on a parked motorcycle on the side of the road cannot tell the difference between such and texting, and it is far more important to keep people from texting while driving than it is to allow them to idly handle their phones while driving. I think this reasonably extends to Google Glass as well.
Sure but can you invert the Y-Axis on the joystick?
"science is all about probing the truths of nature via experimentation" That is the narrow more recent definition of science. The broad definition has only to do with reliable and reasoned study of an area, which is why mathematics, computer science, library science, political science, etc. are all called sciences. The scientific method based definition is only one type of science.
Dijkstra said something about computer science being as much about computers as astronomy is about telescopes. Programming is a necessary skill for doing computer science (although, that may be somewhat debatable in some areas of computer science, like many areas of theory), but it is not a subset of computer science. Just as operating a telescope is not a subset of astronomy.
Unless your tweets are protected there is very little obvious reason to use https for twitter, since they would all be public anyway, and the login does use https.
Facebook always uses HTTPS for logins, so your password is never sent in the clear anyway.
Your employer has the right to look at whatever you do with _their_ computers. They cannot come to your home and look at your gmail account or use your company email password to get into your gmail account. This is obviously different. Your gmail account is private in that sense.
I think this comparison should only be made alongside when people are beginning relationships. For instance, perhaps there is a sharp rise in breakups after Valentine's Day because people are feeling sentimental before VD or don't want to be alone and so are more likely to begin a romantic relationship shortly before--couple that with the conventional wisdom that most relationships don't last 5 weeks and it seems obvious that the breakup rate would be highest just a few weeks after Valentine's Day. Or, potentially, you might find that those breaking up around spring break very quickly began new relationships suggesting that they were cutting ties with their SOs prior to spring break so that they can "have a good time" and "meet some new people" on Spring Break.
Who cares? This isn't censorship. They just don't want to get a bunch of complaints from your grandmother when she searches for "penitence" and after hunt-and-pecking "p-e-n-i" gets something that upsets her. You can still search for whatever you want, they just aren't going to automatically guess you mean something dirty because it might offend you greatly if you don't, which would be a PR nightmare. The converse is not true. It doesn't offend anybody (except maybe people who are rabidly-irrational about anything that could possibly be construed as censorship) to get benign results when searching for something dirty as long as they can get to the results by pressing the "Enter" key.
Or, "Intel Threatens to use DMCA against HDCP Crack Users."
Regardless, I agree--that is one poorly written headline.
I wonder if the opposite is also true. Perhaps those with lower testosterone tend to accept mergers & acquisition offers when it is not in their best interest.
The website is being hosted by a private company--Rackspace--which has a vested interest in its own self image and no obligation to host a site on its privately owned servers unless it has a contractual obligation to do so. Doesn't matter what loophole they put in their contract, they could have put "if we decide we don't like your site we will take it down," if they wanted, and if this site is indeed in violation of their contract, however loopholey it feels, they have every right to take it down. Nobody has a right to have their site hosted on someone else's server.
That said, the media is making a non-story a story. This is one crazy guy with his 50 crazy friends burning some books. He isn't a spokesperson for any organization other than the 50 crazy friends. If the Pope or Billy Graham or Richard Dawkins or some political figure decided to do this, then it might have merit as a story, but as it stands this is a very tiny molehill being made into a really huge mountain.
I pictured it pretty much as it was in the film, but I had seen the Alan Lee paintings.
'Do you think Doritos would be allowed to sell bags as "up to a pound" when they averaged 9oz and some had quite a bit less?'
I don't see why not. Isn't that exactly what w00t does with its bag of random stuff. At least, I don't think it is false advertising. They said "up to" not "averaging" so anyone who speaks english and has an iota of mathematical sense should know that they aren't going to see those speeds.
That said, I hate these companies. I just think we should complain about all the legitimate things they give us to complain about rather than engineer a problem using a bad understanding of pseudo-mathematical terms.
Oh, and the point of all this being that the OP wants to be able to jailbreak his phone through his browser even though any method of making changes to the OS via a webpage represents a serious security hole in the browser.
"There is a jailbreak application that prompts the user before downloading any PDF via the Safari browser, meaning that you have to allow the browser to download any exploit."
I, at least, read this as saying that instead of fixing the problem the jailbreak application that he would prefer Apple mimic, simply prompts a user every time they download a PDF so they have to allow the browser to "download the exploit." That means that the exploit is still in the PDF being downloaded, its just that a website can't secretly send you to a PDF when you think you are getting a webpage.
Sorry about that... I think I was reading into your post what I wanted to read, since I had already read several posts above saying exactly what I thought you were saying. Doh. (Inserts foot in mouth =D).
WHAT? The real security issue is that a website could own your device. Who cares that jailbreakers were using this to do something they wanted to do to their own devices, it could just as easily have been malicious.
You said: Once they do that, these vulnerabilities will no longer have a beneficial side to them.
I'm sorry, but what the heck are you talking about? I can think of a ton of vulnerabilities that would have a "beneficial" side to them. Say, for instance, a website were to install a key logger and capture all your passwords, or credit card numbers, or whatever... This vulnerability is far worse than simply allowing people to jailbreak their phones. It gives some other entity remote code execution to your device and that is pretty much the worst sort of vulnerability and Apple is right to patch it as quickly as possible. Period.
So what you are saying is that Apple should leave the hole allowing a PDF to do remote code execution (which no PDF reader should allow), then they should harass all users every time they download a PDF to tell them it might have the ability to own their device (since they decided to leave the huge security hole) and all this just so that people who want to jailbreak their phones don't have to plug them into a computer via USB? You were kidding, right?
I have the opposite approach. Classes where powerpoint is used are almost always worthless and you might as well just download the slides and read them on your own time. Thoughtful use of a piece of chalk can explain complex and abstract ideas in depth at a pace that can easily be followed. I only take classes where powerpoint is not used, if I can get away with it (which isn't easy in my field).