The real kicker is BlackBerry devices, and your aforementioned "any phone since the mid 90s", can't do that. Only satellite phones can do that, and I'm pretty sure RIM don't make those.
... Stuff he completely refused to document or explain, making it perfectly indistinguishable from the rantings of once-great scientist who has slipped into mediocrity, or even insanity. It's strange how you think the 'stuff' he came up with, that you don't understand, is somehow noteworthy. Surely that is irrational, as you don't know what it is. It's as if you are worshipping at the altar of Tesla. You're not a conspiracy theorist, are you?
Well, it definitely was in Britain, when the cavity magnetron was put into use in night-fighters. It provided the first centimetric radar, capable of detecting fighters and even breached submarine periscopes, while being small enough to mount in a fighter. To explain the sudden increase in the nocturnal accuracy of the RAF, the old "carrots help you see in the dark" myth was spun, which had the added benefit of encouraging children to eat healthy food.
Don't like DRM? Then don't watch DRM content. It's that simple. DRM doesn't give you less content, as people who currently use DRM simply won't publish anything unless they can use DRM. The choice is between having DRM & more content, or having no DRM & less content. DRM is not forced on everyone producing audio and video for the internet, it is, however, there should someone feel the need or desire to use it. It's an option.
That same army that was based thousands of miles away, and which was fighting a far better army than the Americas had, at the same time. Basically it was the French fighting German mercenaries on (what would eventually be) US soil.
The SDK has been improved greatly recently, and in the near future they're going to offer up much greater access of the underlying phone itself. There's no such thing as a "jailbroken" Palm Pre, just one in developer mode, or with root access granted (which is trivial to accomplish). Getting samba running on it is trivially easy, for example, allowing new media to be added to the phone over wireless. I'm rambling now. I'll shut up.
Please re-read my comment. You clearly misunderstood it. When talking about a distinct set, in this case a Barbie toy, an Apple computer, and a TRS-80, saying "the apple" to refer to the only Apple device in the list is perfectly acceptable. It's not strange, and it's not indicative of people misunderstanding or misusing terminology.
Nope, give it to the police. It does not belong to the owner of the establishment it was found in. And as for your dog analogy, if you ask someone who doesn't own the dog if they want their dog back, and they say "no", it doesn't mean you can keep the dog. Doing a half-assed job of contacting the owner is not enough.
Always, always just give it to the police. If you have the phone in your possession, it's a safe bet you have to do all you can to get it back to the rightful owner. Giving it to a third party that clearly doesn't own it, i.e. the bartender, is a silly move. Just give it to the cops. That's always, 100% right, wherever you are.
Bullshit. Hand it over to the police, not some barkeep who hasn't taken an oath to uphold the law. If you lost your wallet, would you want it, cash, cards 'n' all, given to the fucking barkeep? I know loads of barkeeps personally, and they're all fine folks, but it's not their job to look after such things. What if they subsequently lost it, and the rightful owner knew they had it? They'd then be liable for it. Giving it to the police is the only right course of action. They have the ability to track down the owner, and there will never, ever be any question of your actions.
He should have given it to the police. He assumed Apple owned it - a far more reasonable attempt at contacting the owner would have been calling the actual person who lost the phone. Everyone in this story is an ass. I borderline detest apple, but I can@t fault them here.
Just so the bartender can steal it? What an honest (and clear-thinking) person would do is hand it in to the police, and tell the bartender that. That way, if the owner of the property retraces their steps and enquires as to the whereabouts of said property at the various places they visited before losing it, they'll know it's with the police. When you hand it in to the police you can (and should) get a receipt. Most places the cops will let you keep it if it goes uncollected within a certain amount of time. All this bullshit about handing it to the bartender, or keeping it yourself and trying to find the owner, is just that - bullshit. The police are there for exactly this sort of purpose.
In some jurisdictions, RICO suits have been filed against abusive Catholic dioceses, using racketeering laws to prosecute the seemingly untouchable higher-ups in the episcopacy. A Cleveland grand jury cleared two bishops of racketeering charges, finding that their mishandling of sex abuse claims didn't amount to criminal racketeering. Certain lawyers and abuse advocates have openly wondered why a similar suit was not filed against archbishop Bernard Law, who escaped prosecution by going into exile in Vatican City.
HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet missile. I doubt the Japanese had many of those of Okinawa. And what the hell does the Samuel B. Roberts getting an 8-meter hole in it from a mine have to do with Kamikaze attacks? You're all over the place.
They were not encrypted when they were stolen, which I think is the point.
But, as others have pointed out, the author of TFA didn't read the law, and got it all wrong. There is no requirement for the records to be encrypted on the server, only if they are on a laptop or being transmitted wirelessly.
You sure did say "we" a lot. You didn't put it in space. You didn't figure out the trouble and go and fix it. Your only effort was paying tax - a few cents of which went into paying for it, all without your input. Why are you so desperate to cling to the successes of others? Is it some vain attempt to improve your own perception of yourself? Are you really that insecure as a human being that you have to judge yourself by the actions of others that you are connected to only by some arbitrary, artificial borders, and the very accident of your birth?
And as others have pointed out, it wasn't just an American project.
Slashdot Mirror
The real kicker is BlackBerry devices, and your aforementioned "any phone since the mid 90s", can't do that. Only satellite phones can do that, and I'm pretty sure RIM don't make those.
... Stuff he completely refused to document or explain, making it perfectly indistinguishable from the rantings of once-great scientist who has slipped into mediocrity, or even insanity. It's strange how you think the 'stuff' he came up with, that you don't understand, is somehow noteworthy. Surely that is irrational, as you don't know what it is. It's as if you are worshipping at the altar of Tesla. You're not a conspiracy theorist, are you?
Well, it definitely was in Britain, when the cavity magnetron was put into use in night-fighters. It provided the first centimetric radar, capable of detecting fighters and even breached submarine periscopes, while being small enough to mount in a fighter. To explain the sudden increase in the nocturnal accuracy of the RAF, the old "carrots help you see in the dark" myth was spun, which had the added benefit of encouraging children to eat healthy food.
Don't like DRM? Then don't watch DRM content. It's that simple. DRM doesn't give you less content, as people who currently use DRM simply won't publish anything unless they can use DRM. The choice is between having DRM & more content, or having no DRM & less content. DRM is not forced on everyone producing audio and video for the internet, it is, however, there should someone feel the need or desire to use it. It's an option.
That same army that was based thousands of miles away, and which was fighting a far better army than the Americas had, at the same time. Basically it was the French fighting German mercenaries on (what would eventually be) US soil.
No, they were not. Saddam's government hated Al Qaeda.
That was only in the Windows 3.1 beta, and was removed from the final code.
He was until a dingo got to him.
The SDK has been improved greatly recently, and in the near future they're going to offer up much greater access of the underlying phone itself. There's no such thing as a "jailbroken" Palm Pre, just one in developer mode, or with root access granted (which is trivial to accomplish). Getting samba running on it is trivially easy, for example, allowing new media to be added to the phone over wireless. I'm rambling now. I'll shut up.
Yeah! Because Linux hasn't changed at all in the last 10 years! The fools! It's hilarious!
Please re-read my comment. You clearly misunderstood it. When talking about a distinct set, in this case a Barbie toy, an Apple computer, and a TRS-80, saying "the apple" to refer to the only Apple device in the list is perfectly acceptable. It's not strange, and it's not indicative of people misunderstanding or misusing terminology.
Nope, give it to the police. It does not belong to the owner of the establishment it was found in. And as for your dog analogy, if you ask someone who doesn't own the dog if they want their dog back, and they say "no", it doesn't mean you can keep the dog. Doing a half-assed job of contacting the owner is not enough.
Always, always just give it to the police. If you have the phone in your possession, it's a safe bet you have to do all you can to get it back to the rightful owner. Giving it to a third party that clearly doesn't own it, i.e. the bartender, is a silly move. Just give it to the cops. That's always, 100% right, wherever you are.
Bullshit. Hand it over to the police, not some barkeep who hasn't taken an oath to uphold the law. If you lost your wallet, would you want it, cash, cards 'n' all, given to the fucking barkeep? I know loads of barkeeps personally, and they're all fine folks, but it's not their job to look after such things. What if they subsequently lost it, and the rightful owner knew they had it? They'd then be liable for it. Giving it to the police is the only right course of action. They have the ability to track down the owner, and there will never, ever be any question of your actions.
He should have given it to the police. He assumed Apple owned it - a far more reasonable attempt at contacting the owner would have been calling the actual person who lost the phone. Everyone in this story is an ass. I borderline detest apple, but I can@t fault them here.
No, it would be handing over to the police.
Just so the bartender can steal it? What an honest (and clear-thinking) person would do is hand it in to the police, and tell the bartender that. That way, if the owner of the property retraces their steps and enquires as to the whereabouts of said property at the various places they visited before losing it, they'll know it's with the police. When you hand it in to the police you can (and should) get a receipt. Most places the cops will let you keep it if it goes uncollected within a certain amount of time. All this bullshit about handing it to the bartender, or keeping it yourself and trying to find the owner, is just that - bullshit. The police are there for exactly this sort of purpose.
1850 is pretty modern for most countries ;)
Already been done. From Wikipedia:
In some jurisdictions, RICO suits have been filed against abusive Catholic dioceses, using racketeering laws to prosecute the seemingly untouchable higher-ups in the episcopacy. A Cleveland grand jury cleared two bishops of racketeering charges, finding that their mishandling of sex abuse claims didn't amount to criminal racketeering. Certain lawyers and abuse advocates have openly wondered why a similar suit was not filed against archbishop Bernard Law, who escaped prosecution by going into exile in Vatican City.
HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet missile. I doubt the Japanese had many of those of Okinawa. And what the hell does the Samuel B. Roberts getting an 8-meter hole in it from a mine have to do with Kamikaze attacks? You're all over the place.
No, that's not how reality works. Something can be designed to defeat something else, and to do so very well, without actually having to do it.
According to US law, attacks against military targets are not terrorism. 22 USC 2656f(d)(2).
They were not encrypted when they were stolen, which I think is the point.
But, as others have pointed out, the author of TFA didn't read the law, and got it all wrong. There is no requirement for the records to be encrypted on the server, only if they are on a laptop or being transmitted wirelessly.
You sure did say "we" a lot. You didn't put it in space. You didn't figure out the trouble and go and fix it. Your only effort was paying tax - a few cents of which went into paying for it, all without your input. Why are you so desperate to cling to the successes of others? Is it some vain attempt to improve your own perception of yourself? Are you really that insecure as a human being that you have to judge yourself by the actions of others that you are connected to only by some arbitrary, artificial borders, and the very accident of your birth?
And as others have pointed out, it wasn't just an American project.
Why?