A right to privacy exists, and does not rely upon the Constitution, which simply defines the powers the people give to government.
This is affirmed by the 9th Amendment, although the right exists independently of it.
You're the sort of person for whom the Bill of Rights was added, because you simply don't understand the concept. The Constitution gives the Federal Government no power to intrude on privacy, therefore the right is retained by the people.
bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince... It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations...I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 84
Much US "case law," isn't law (in the exact same sense that our current money doesn't have value). It's not founded on any pure principles of ethics or logic, despite the claims of weasly lawyers and congresscritters, but upon convenience and authority through force. It's a history of progressive ursurpations of powers not granted by the people, and is illegitimate. The king has no clothes. That some judge states "black is white" doesn't make it so, and simply weakens any legitimacy the law once had.
with the privacy of their employees. Case in point, mine provides my Social Security number to third parties, against my express direction, with absolutely no business need, and in direct violation of their own written privacy policy.
Able to remain aloft for up to 30 continuous hours Ikhana serves up information in minutes, a process that takes hours when done by manned aircraft observation.
Hours? Minutes? So what, the fires have been burning for a week.
The article is clearly someone trying to justify their living off the public dole.
Come to think of it, seeing as plastic is made from oil, which was made from animals that died a long time ago, it's already not suitable for vegetarians.
But those animals were ultimately made from vegetables, so it should be cool.
If racism is politically incorrect, why aren't these animalia supremecists criticized for their kingdomism? Flora is life, too.
as in "pissing contest," because it certainly isn't apopos to your technical knowledge.
Cisco is a marketing company, not a technology company. They buy companies which have developed technologies they wish to market. In _any_ product category, Cisco has competitors who make better products, cheaper. Cisco does have a broad range of products, so can often serve as a "one stop shop," though. They're very much like Microsoft, using network standards with an "embrace and extend" philosophy, to try and lock customers into their proprietary solutions, and make it difficult for customers to move to competitive solutions.
Brazil could easily do without them, and would save money in the process.
Yes, the article summary used the term incorrectly, but no, 151.20 does not have more significant digits than 222,000 in this case. Both are exact numbers, are not rounded in any way, and so can be thought to have an inifinite number of significant digits.
the old trick of mailing a copy of something to yourself as soon as you've created it still works just like it always did. (Dated postmark.)
I plan on mailing a bunch of (unsealed) manila envelopes to myself tomorrow. Then, in a couple of years, I'll retype one or two titles from the NYT bestsellers list, stuff them in an envelope, seal it, and sue.
According to you, I'll have ironclad proof that they're infringing my copyright. I'll be rich!
... i would guarantee that the repetition of below act would totally nullify any developer doing any crap for anything that starts with f and ends with k...
You wouldn't do anything for a fuck? You're obviously not a developer, and are on the wrong website.
the Act says no such thing, and I challenge you to point out where it does. Not some self-serving website, cite from the M-M Warranty Act.
Your's is one of the most common mistaken beliefs about the Act (propagated by deliberately misleading self-serving claims of aftermarket modification makers).
It all depends on exactly what the warranty says. If it says "damage caused by unauthorized mods not covered," you're close to correct, but for the wrong reason. If it says "warranty void if any unauthorized mods are made," you're just plain wrong.
find anything in the Act which says anything similar to your "understanding." Pointing to some web site which has some incorrect, self-serving interpretation (there are lots of 'em) doesn't count. Like I said, a manufacturer can, as long as it is clearly spelled out in the warranty terms, void the entire warranty on a car if you hang fuzzy dice from the mirror. It is the market, not the law, which serves to prevent them from doing so in actual practice.
It all depends upon exactly what Apple says in the warranty terms. If they say "this warranty is void if any unauthorized modifications are made to the product," then that is the case. It makes no difference if a problem was caused by the modification, or not.
In the US, a warrantor can say the whole warranty is nullified for just about anything they can define. The only thing they need to do is state so in plain terms. Read the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, if you want to know.
Most of the "they can't do X" crap, stems from a misinterpretation of one specific part of the act:
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if -
(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and
(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest.
The clause is to prevent, say, a vacuum cleaner company from requiring used of their own brand of bags (unless they provide them free). It doesn't mean you can modify your car for more horsepower, and expect the manufacturer to cover the engine under warranty when it breaks. It also doesn't mean a manufacturer can't put a clause in the warranty which says the car's warranty is voided if you hang fuzzy dice from the mirror. It means that they can't put a clause which says "Use of any brand fuzzy dice other than ACME brand fuzzy dice will void the engine warranty."
Specific to the case at hand, since Apple provides firmware "without charge" during the warranty period, Magnuson-Moss does not require that they allow third party or modified firmware to be used under the warranty terms, and Apple is within the law if they require that only their firmware be used to maintain a valid warranty.
ISPs burn themselves by getting into content filtering. Force them make a choice between "common carrier" status, where they aren't responsible for the traffic they carry, and being subject to suit over delivering damaging traffic, like viruses and DOS attacks.
to spout incorrect crap without citing any source.
In the US, a warrantor can say the whole warranty is nullified if you hang fuzzy dice off the corner of your screen. The only thing they need to do is state so in plain terms. Read the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, if you want to know.
Most of the "they can't do X" crap, like the AC's comment, stems from a misinterpretation of one specific part of the act"
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or
implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in
connection with such product, any article or service (other than
article or service provided without charge under the terms of the
warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name;
except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the
Commission if -
(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted
product will function properly only if the article or service so
identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and
(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public
interest.
The clause is to prevent, say, a vacuum cleaner company from requiring used of their own brand of bags (unless they provide them free). It doesn't mean you can modify your car for more horsepower, and expect the manufacturer to cover the engine under warranty when it breaks. It also doesn't mean a manufacturer can't put a clause in the warranty which says the engine warranty is voided if you hang fuzzy dice from the mirror. It means that they can't put a clause which says "Use of any brand fuzzy dice other than ACME brand fuzzy dice will void the engine warranty."
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft is in charge of security. Anyone will be able to get in if they want to.
Since Darl figured out how to create a slashdot account.
Fuck off, pedant (and learn to recognize context).
Read the article again. This is about warrantless wiretaps, bulk Internet traffic snooping, and other unconstitutional infringments of privacy.
This is affirmed by the 9th Amendment, although the right exists independently of it.
You're the sort of person for whom the Bill of Rights was added, because you simply don't understand the concept. The Constitution gives the Federal Government no power to intrude on privacy, therefore the right is retained by the people.
-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 84
Much US "case law," isn't law (in the exact same sense that our current money doesn't have value). It's not founded on any pure principles of ethics or logic, despite the claims of weasly lawyers and congresscritters, but upon convenience and authority through force. It's a history of progressive ursurpations of powers not granted by the people, and is illegitimate. The king has no clothes.
That some judge states "black is white" doesn't make it so, and simply weakens any legitimacy the law once had.
some Crow's Tongue in Aspic.
with the privacy of their employees. Case in point, mine provides my Social Security number to third parties, against my express direction, with absolutely no business need, and in direct violation of their own written privacy policy.
The article is clearly someone trying to justify their living off the public dole.
If racism is politically incorrect, why aren't these animalia supremecists criticized for their kingdomism? Flora is life, too.
I'll sell them a dartboard for only $1 million!
as in "pissing contest," because it certainly isn't apopos to your technical knowledge.
Cisco is a marketing company, not a technology company. They buy companies which have developed technologies they wish to market. In _any_ product category, Cisco has competitors who make better products, cheaper. Cisco does have a broad range of products, so can often serve as a "one stop shop," though. They're very much like Microsoft, using network standards with an "embrace and extend" philosophy, to try and lock customers into their proprietary solutions, and make it difficult for customers to move to competitive solutions. Brazil could easily do without them, and would save money in the process.
it such backdoors exist, then Brazil would be crazy to continue to buy from Cisco.
extraditing corporate execs from the US, even though the extradition treaty specifically covers the described offense (see Article II, Section 29).
Yes, the article summary used the term incorrectly, but no, 151.20 does not have more significant digits than 222,000 in this case. Both are exact numbers, are not rounded in any way, and so can be thought to have an inifinite number of significant digits.
According to you, I'll have ironclad proof that they're infringing my copyright. I'll be rich!
A "no mods" provision is not a "tie-in" provision.
the Act says no such thing, and I challenge you to point out where it does. Not some self-serving website, cite from the M-M Warranty Act.
Your's is one of the most common mistaken beliefs about the Act (propagated by deliberately misleading self-serving claims of aftermarket modification makers).
It all depends on exactly what the warranty says. If it says "damage caused by unauthorized mods not covered," you're close to correct, but for the wrong reason. If it says "warranty void if any unauthorized mods are made," you're just plain wrong.
find anything in the Act which says anything similar to your "understanding." Pointing to some web site which has some incorrect, self-serving interpretation (there are lots of 'em) doesn't count. Like I said, a manufacturer can, as long as it is clearly spelled out in the warranty terms, void the entire warranty on a car if you hang fuzzy dice from the mirror. It is the market, not the law, which serves to prevent them from doing so in actual practice.
It all depends upon exactly what Apple says in the warranty terms. If they say "this warranty is void if any unauthorized modifications are made to the product," then that is the case. It makes no difference if a problem was caused by the modification, or not.
..."other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty."
As stated (perhaps you didn't read this either: "Apple provides firmware "without charge" during the warranty period."
Most of the "they can't do X" crap, stems from a misinterpretation of one specific part of the act:
The clause is to prevent, say, a vacuum cleaner company from requiring used of their own brand of bags (unless they provide them free). It doesn't mean you can modify your car for more horsepower, and expect the manufacturer to cover the engine under warranty when it breaks. It also doesn't mean a manufacturer can't put a clause in the warranty which says the car's warranty is voided if you hang fuzzy dice from the mirror. It means that they can't put a clause which says "Use of any brand fuzzy dice other than ACME brand fuzzy dice will void the engine warranty."
Specific to the case at hand, since Apple provides firmware "without charge" during the warranty period, Magnuson-Moss does not require that they allow third party or modified firmware to be used under the warranty terms, and Apple is within the law if they require that only their firmware be used to maintain a valid warranty.
ISPs burn themselves by getting into content filtering. Force them make a choice between "common carrier" status, where they aren't responsible for the traffic they carry, and being subject to suit over delivering damaging traffic, like viruses and DOS attacks.
the DHS has found a way to pay for citizen surveillance without using taxpayer dollars.
In the US, a warrantor can say the whole warranty is nullified if you hang fuzzy dice off the corner of your screen. The only thing they need to do is state so in plain terms. Read the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, if you want to know.
Most of the "they can't do X" crap, like the AC's comment, stems from a misinterpretation of one specific part of the act"The clause is to prevent, say, a vacuum cleaner company from requiring used of their own brand of bags (unless they provide them free). It doesn't mean you can modify your car for more horsepower, and expect the manufacturer to cover the engine under warranty when it breaks. It also doesn't mean a manufacturer can't put a clause in the warranty which says the engine warranty is voided if you hang fuzzy dice from the mirror. It means that they can't put a clause which says "Use of any brand fuzzy dice other than ACME brand fuzzy dice will void the engine warranty."
that the manager didn't get the news.