LOL. It's not like the US needs help in gaming their own system. One only needs to look at all the rules which give preference to a 2 party system to see that to be true. The Rs and Ds are more alike than different - they have a shared focus on growing government power and only differ on what to do with that power.
"Niantic does not and has no plans to sell Pokemon Go user data -- aggregated, de-identified or otherwise -- to any third party," Power wrote. The company also adds that data is shared with mobile app analytics companies and with marketing and analysis companies,
So, they do in fact provide user data to third parties. It's laughable to think they don't "sell" (i.e. derive financial benefit) it to them and simply provide it free.
"they just meant the rocket had an issue leading to its explosion"
There's not enough detail to say that. The issue may have not involved the rocket directly, but occurred in the pad's infrastructure, possibly related to fueling operations in preparation for the firing test. You didn't provide the full quote of SpaceX's statement:
SpaceX can confirm that in preparation for today's pre-launch static fire test, there was an anomoloy on the pad resulting in the loss of the vehicle and its payload. Per standard procedure, the pad was clear and there were no injuries.
How can the FDA find ethical or safety issues in running tests on a vial of blood, or even poking someone who agrees with a lancet? Really, I got poked with a lancet in middle school biology class, and I'm sure the teacher didn't have to go through any damn review board.
"And like CB Radio the fad will disperse eventually and we'll move on to the next thing..."
Drone Wars! I see an upcoming market for "Roomba docking" type drones which will defend personal airspace against invading drones. Drop a net on 'em, pick 'em up, eBay FTW!
Thanks for the insightful comment. It's rare on/. to find a logical, rather than emotional, argument. That's a very unusual (to me) regulation you cite, due to the way it's informally written. It's interesting that it quotes "unauthorized" with a citation, although the term never appears in the cited law. I don't think that would pass muster.
Stipulating that regulatory "law" is legitimate (the Constitution gives Congress no power to pass their powers through to an unelected bureaucracy, but that's a completely different discussion), it offends sound reason for something which is very clearly written to be "deceptive." But, modern law often offends logic.
More directly, "unauthorized" is very different than prohibited, it's passive vs active.
The explanatory phrase of the regulation was left out:
...provisions such as, "This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized 'ABC' dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine 'ABC' parts," and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty.
... which doesn't really apply when replacing firmware which is covered by the warranty. One might argue that there are bugs, but the fact is that the phone is operating as it was sold, and there are other remedies for non-performance. Alternate firmware is done to change the behavior of the phone, not to return it to its original functional state (cf "replacement part").
All the "they can't void your warranty" claims, both this one and the ones commonly claimed to apply to automotive modification, are based on this, found at 15USC2302(c):
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
That's there so Hoover can't force you to buy their expensive name brand vacuum cleaner bags to maintain the warranty. It doesn't prevent a manufacturer from setting quality specifications ("use 5W-30 API SM certified oil"). It doesn't prevent a manufacturer from saying you can't do modifications. It just says they can't demand you buy stuff from them to maintain warranty. There's a big difference. Your firmware got corrupted? The manufacturer will flash it again, free, under warranty. If a car maker wants to say they won't warranty the engine if you hang fuzzy dice on the mirror, they can - as long as that's clearly spelled out in the warranty terms - they're not in violation of the MMWA. There's nothing in the MMWA which even remotely says they must prove the modification caused anything. The most obvious place where it would apply to phones is with replacement batteries, if the manufacturer didn't replace them free during the warranty.
If you break the phone (say, by blowing a security fuse while trying to load alternate firmware), it would be hard to argue that the alternate firmware wasn't the cause of the failure.
I sympathize with wanting the ability to modify phones. I've rooted mine, but run stock firmware with bloatware removed, the tethering block removed, and no other mods. Some firmware plays with processor overclocking, which can cause hardware failure. I've seen lots of forum posts where someone "bricked" their phone by modifying the bootloader/firmware, who then go on to describe acting ignorant as to how it happened and getting it replaced under warranty. That's fraud, plain and simple, so I can also sympathize with manufacturer's who don't want to pay for phones broken by users actions.
Finally, from a pragmatic perspective, they'll do what they want, it's going to end up costing much more than a new phone to even bring the issue to court. In Michigan, where the author is from, you can sue a company in small claims if you can find where they have a physical presence in the state, but they then have the right to get it moved to district court, where you'll end up needing to pay for a lawyer. Guess which of the parties has lawyers on retainer? So, in practice, if they don't want to honor the warranty for any reason, they won't.
The "metadata" in Smith v Maryland was limited to what a pen recorder could provide, which was called party number, time and duration. Contrast that to cell phone records which also contain caller number (so now data is specific to actions made by the target), location, voice/data/SMS information, and a stronger association with an individual (a landline of S v M vintage wouldn't be as closely associated with an individual as a cell phone).
Additionally, the decision in S v M depended upon a user's lack of an expectation of privacy - that was the days of Ma Bell, where you took what they offered (which included no assurance of privacy) or nothing. Modern cell companies are competitive, and most if not all offer specific privacy policies as part of their ToS, so there _is_ a reasonable expectation of privacy.
None of that has been addressed in subsequent cases, law enforcement has simply taken the attitude that anything other than the actual voice content is OK.
Warrants are also supposed to supported by probable cause and be specific ("particular") about what's being sought and where. Not "phone records of all calls made in the US," which is exactly what's NOT supposed to be allowed.
There's no basis for comparison between the two. Token Ring is a link layer technology (ISO Layer 2), and compares to Ethernet, not IP. IP will run on both.
Which isn't quite the same as saying "much is gained." Damn congresscritters, anytime I "email" one (they seem to think filling out a web form is somehow email), they'll start spamming me from a "we don't reply to email sent to this address" source. Fuck 'em. Spam 'em. They deserve it. They're supposed to represent us, they're not the special snowflakes they think they are.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL. It's not like the US needs help in gaming their own system. One only needs to look at all the rules which give preference to a 2 party system to see that to be true. The Rs and Ds are more alike than different - they have a shared focus on growing government power and only differ on what to do with that power.
In exactly what way is that _not_ providing data to third parties?
But seriously,
So, they do in fact provide user data to third parties. It's laughable to think they don't "sell" (i.e. derive financial benefit) it to them and simply provide it free.
Sheryl Sandberg: "What are we going to do today, Mark?"
Mark Zuckerberg: "The same thing we do everyday, Sheryl, try to take over the world!"
Memetard. It's "Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."
It was a terrorist flying rod.
Why expend the effort of moving vehicles back and forth, when transporter technology is right around the corner?
You don't know what the word "may" means, do you?
There's not enough detail to say that. The issue may have not involved the rocket directly, but occurred in the pad's infrastructure, possibly related to fueling operations in preparation for the firing test. You didn't provide the full quote of SpaceX's statement:
How can the FDA find ethical or safety issues in running tests on a vial of blood, or even poking someone who agrees with a lancet? Really, I got poked with a lancet in middle school biology class, and I'm sure the teacher didn't have to go through any damn review board.
"And like CB Radio the fad will disperse eventually and we'll move on to the next thing..."
Drone Wars! I see an upcoming market for "Roomba docking" type drones which will defend personal airspace against invading drones. Drop a net on 'em, pick 'em up, eBay FTW!
600,000? That's a lot of .410 birdshot!
Virii is not the plural of virus.
"You're full of shit."
My shit comes out of my ass. Your shit comes out of your mouth.
Stipulating that regulatory "law" is legitimate (the Constitution gives Congress no power to pass their powers through to an unelected bureaucracy, but that's a completely different discussion), it offends sound reason for something which is very clearly written to be "deceptive." But, modern law often offends logic.
More directly, "unauthorized" is very different than prohibited, it's passive vs active. The explanatory phrase of the regulation was left out:
... which doesn't really apply when replacing firmware which is covered by the warranty. One might argue that there are bugs, but the fact is that the phone is operating as it was sold, and there are other remedies for non-performance. Alternate firmware is done to change the behavior of the phone, not to return it to its original functional state (cf "replacement part").
That's there so Hoover can't force you to buy their expensive name brand vacuum cleaner bags to maintain the warranty. It doesn't prevent a manufacturer from setting quality specifications ("use 5W-30 API SM certified oil"). It doesn't prevent a manufacturer from saying you can't do modifications. It just says they can't demand you buy stuff from them to maintain warranty. There's a big difference. Your firmware got corrupted? The manufacturer will flash it again, free, under warranty. If a car maker wants to say they won't warranty the engine if you hang fuzzy dice on the mirror, they can - as long as that's clearly spelled out in the warranty terms - they're not in violation of the MMWA. There's nothing in the MMWA which even remotely says they must prove the modification caused anything. The most obvious place where it would apply to phones is with replacement batteries, if the manufacturer didn't replace them free during the warranty.
If you break the phone (say, by blowing a security fuse while trying to load alternate firmware), it would be hard to argue that the alternate firmware wasn't the cause of the failure.
I sympathize with wanting the ability to modify phones. I've rooted mine, but run stock firmware with bloatware removed, the tethering block removed, and no other mods. Some firmware plays with processor overclocking, which can cause hardware failure. I've seen lots of forum posts where someone "bricked" their phone by modifying the bootloader/firmware, who then go on to describe acting ignorant as to how it happened and getting it replaced under warranty. That's fraud, plain and simple, so I can also sympathize with manufacturer's who don't want to pay for phones broken by users actions.
Finally, from a pragmatic perspective, they'll do what they want, it's going to end up costing much more than a new phone to even bring the issue to court. In Michigan, where the author is from, you can sue a company in small claims if you can find where they have a physical presence in the state, but they then have the right to get it moved to district court, where you'll end up needing to pay for a lawyer. Guess which of the parties has lawyers on retainer? So, in practice, if they don't want to honor the warranty for any reason, they won't.
"...juicing your short term stock price."
That didn't work very well. Currently, CSCO 30.715 -0.405 (-1.3%). It was down almost 2.5% at one point. NASDAQ composite is only down 0.18%
"... break down the viral casing is retarded in cold conditions."
FTFY - "the viral casing is break down challenged in cold conditions."
I'll just watch for the cross-traffic light to turn yellow, thanks.
The "metadata" in Smith v Maryland was limited to what a pen recorder could provide, which was called party number, time and duration. Contrast that to cell phone records which also contain caller number (so now data is specific to actions made by the target), location, voice/data/SMS information, and a stronger association with an individual (a landline of S v M vintage wouldn't be as closely associated with an individual as a cell phone).
Additionally, the decision in S v M depended upon a user's lack of an expectation of privacy - that was the days of Ma Bell, where you took what they offered (which included no assurance of privacy) or nothing. Modern cell companies are competitive, and most if not all offer specific privacy policies as part of their ToS, so there _is_ a reasonable expectation of privacy.
None of that has been addressed in subsequent cases, law enforcement has simply taken the attitude that anything other than the actual voice content is OK.
Warrants are also supposed to supported by probable cause and be specific ("particular") about what's being sought and where. Not "phone records of all calls made in the US," which is exactly what's NOT supposed to be allowed.
Token Ring ... "Slower than TCP/IP,"
There's no basis for comparison between the two. Token Ring is a link layer technology (ISO Layer 2), and compares to Ethernet, not IP. IP will run on both.
The law has no clothes. Sometimes the court is contemptible.
"Not much is lost..."
Which isn't quite the same as saying "much is gained." Damn congresscritters, anytime I "email" one (they seem to think filling out a web form is somehow email), they'll start spamming me from a "we don't reply to email sent to this address" source. Fuck 'em. Spam 'em. They deserve it. They're supposed to represent us, they're not the special snowflakes they think they are.
"But if Trump did a high-profile Q&A on Twitter, you can bet it would be censored."
It's not clear from your comment - censored on which side of the dialog?