Be carefuly with that analogy. There's no question that Hussein actually had chemical weapons until the '90s. We sold him the fucking things, and the capability to make more, before the Gulf War, and the UN implemented a disarmament treaty in the aftermath. Whether he was following that threaty - and what risk any remaining weapons might present - was central to the Iraq war. It's not like, apropos of nothing, Western powers decided he must have weapons of mass destruction.
Of course there's a preponderance of evidence that whatever his ambitions, he simply did not have the weapons or the capability to make them. That is, there was evidence of absence, not absence of evidence.
Even then I don't think the additional long-term damage from a further nuclear strike right next door would be worth it, compared to a conventional response.
Even a charitable analysis of the situation would suggest that a mixture of "motivated reasoning" (bullshitting yourself to a predetermined conclusion) and/or sheer staggering incompetence was necessary for Hussein's posturing to be read as a credible, actual threat.
Even if he hadn't been complying with his disarmament agreement (which, lest we forget, was partly necessary because Western governments had been selling him chemical weapons and manufacturing equipment for years) that's a political issue for the UN, not a military one. Russia doesn't invade the US every time START gets derailed.
It's more likely that Apple probably has very specific uses in mind for the data, but the US is an anomalously permissive environment with regards to how people's data can be handled and therefore it never occurred to them to enumerate their intended uses.
Actually the same EU data protection rules that apply to private companies apply to governmental organisations. In the EU in general, the organisations most frequently targetted for data protection and freedom of information breaches are public ones.
Maybe if you'd stop reminding people where the meme came from it could be divorced from the bullshit. You can't kill the joke but you can sure as hell kill the PR.
Quick question: can I simply take your videogames and publish them on the App Store as my own? They're unencrypted and on the internet, so according to you I have the right to use that information as I please.
The rules in question don't apply specifically to the internet. If you give an organisation your information, and they store it (relaying the information doesn't count), they have to properly represent what that information will be used for. This is to allow the individual to make an informed decision as to whether or not to perform that exchange of information.
Encrypting the information on the way to the organisation doesn't make a blind bit of difference to that, so I'm not sure why you brought that up.
Given that the invalidated parts give Apple permission to do certain things with the data, Apple now has to stop doing those things, or it will be open to legal action.
Slashdot Mirror
Be carefuly with that analogy. There's no question that Hussein actually had chemical weapons until the '90s. We sold him the fucking things, and the capability to make more, before the Gulf War, and the UN implemented a disarmament treaty in the aftermath. Whether he was following that threaty - and what risk any remaining weapons might present - was central to the Iraq war. It's not like, apropos of nothing, Western powers decided he must have weapons of mass destruction.
Of course there's a preponderance of evidence that whatever his ambitions, he simply did not have the weapons or the capability to make them. That is, there was evidence of absence, not absence of evidence.
I expect that you fully endorse this, then?
Even then I don't think the additional long-term damage from a further nuclear strike right next door would be worth it, compared to a conventional response.
Yes, but some of us have seen actual USAF fighters in flightworthy condition, which is more than can be said of North Korea's armaments.
How do you pick up the flash from an underground nuclear test, exactly? The current concensus is that it could just have easily have been faked.
Even a charitable analysis of the situation would suggest that a mixture of "motivated reasoning" (bullshitting yourself to a predetermined conclusion) and/or sheer staggering incompetence was necessary for Hussein's posturing to be read as a credible, actual threat.
Even if he hadn't been complying with his disarmament agreement (which, lest we forget, was partly necessary because Western governments had been selling him chemical weapons and manufacturing equipment for years) that's a political issue for the UN, not a military one. Russia doesn't invade the US every time START gets derailed.
Precisely my point. As far as we know - and I'm inclined to believe - they don't actually have working missiles yet. They have a PR exercise.
The information that Apple stores is not a set of publicly available facts.
If you're suggesting that North Korea would be nuked in retaliation for a nuclear attack, I dare say that South Korea would object to that plan.
Unfueled nuclear missiles with no payload, yes. They're light, safe and easy to transport.
It's more likely that Apple probably has very specific uses in mind for the data, but the US is an anomalously permissive environment with regards to how people's data can be handled and therefore it never occurred to them to enumerate their intended uses.
Actually the same EU data protection rules that apply to private companies apply to governmental organisations. In the EU in general, the organisations most frequently targetted for data protection and freedom of information breaches are public ones.
Maybe if you'd stop reminding people where the meme came from it could be divorced from the bullshit. You can't kill the joke but you can sure as hell kill the PR.
Precisely.
The whole point of the parade was to demonstrate that they had the weapons, though. Why hold the parade just to show off obvious fakes?
"We have matched your capabilities with papier mache and toilet roll tubes. Resistance is futile."
Your argument is essentially (from reading your previous posts for context), "they did this on the internet, therefore no law applies"?
Funnily enough if I want to do business in a public space I have to properly represent what I am doing there, or I can get done for misrepresentation.
It's a virtual machine, I'd be terribly surprised if it somehow became an actual physical Windows XP box connected to the network.
Quick question: can I simply take your videogames and publish them on the App Store as my own? They're unencrypted and on the internet, so according to you I have the right to use that information as I please.
The rules in question don't apply specifically to the internet. If you give an organisation your information, and they store it (relaying the information doesn't count), they have to properly represent what that information will be used for. This is to allow the individual to make an informed decision as to whether or not to perform that exchange of information.
Encrypting the information on the way to the organisation doesn't make a blind bit of difference to that, so I'm not sure why you brought that up.
Given that the invalidated parts give Apple permission to do certain things with the data, Apple now has to stop doing those things, or it will be open to legal action.
Thanks, I've not really kept up with antivirus software since the '90s.
What about heuristic analysis?
All this time I thought Isk was some sort of space money for Eve Online. Icelandic Kroner? I am an idiot.
You're the one who's willing to believe in a very specific version of events from a single authority on the basis of scant evidence.