Have any ministers, reverends or priests (even the PEDO ones) been assaulted by bands of roving atheists
Yes. In China religious persecution by the government is common. In one example a 70 year old Chinese christian pastor, the head of his local church, was beaten until rendered unconscious. Medical aid was prevented from being given to him. He latter died in prison due to injuries sustained in the beatings.
According to many human rights groups, stories such as this are not uncommon.
Lesson:
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. EVERYONE lives in glass houses, the more so if you claim that any group of people is not evil in some way. EVERY sufficiently large group of people has those within it that have committed vile and unspeakable acts.
Before the religious right we had the Imperialist. Before the Imperialist, we had manifest destiny. Before manifest destiny, we had land grabs in Appalachia (and along the entire colonial border). Before that we had a desire for religious freedom so we left England.
Live and let live was a concept that came about forty years ago, almost no one believed in it. It sounds good though so you see it on slogans.
We have a seperation between Church and State as LAW. We do not, nor did anyone (Founding Fathers) ever intend to require such a seperation on a personal level.
If someone truely belives in something and that something matches your values then you SHOULD want to vote for that person.
The problem only exists when people pander to a group of people with whom they don't share such values.
If we as Americans simply got back involved with politics as our grandparents and all of their ancestors did, we would be in a much better position to remove many of our false and pandering politicians.
Instead most Americans no longer involve themselves in the process. They simply get upset when someone tells them to. Then complain when their life changes in some negative way. If you don't like how something works, then get involved.
Actually there are several cases of atheist murderers terrorists attacking various religious groups.
Extremists are extremists. Some extremists kill people in the belief that it furthers their cause. It is irrelevant to their belief, you can find an example from any sufficiently large group of persons.
History has also shown us that those who resort to the most extreme and violent methods are also the most likely to have their views ignored.
Scientology is *NOT* prohibited in Germany. Because of the way "The Church of Scientology" operates, it is considered a for-profit corporation and not a religion in Germany.
Basically it is treated the same as Microsoft, Apple or IBM in Germany and not the Catholic Church.
All most all of those requirements are your companies policy not the FDA (aka Federal law). The FDA merely requires that a device is fully approved before it gets to the general public. If you make a device and it goes through all appropriate testing and gets approved then it can be sold. Everyone knows what you have. If you then make a change to the device, we no longer know "everything" about it and it has to go through the same testing before it gets approved. There is no requirement that you can only change a product if you have a new "requirement" or can only fix a defect if it is on a but list. (I would also state that any defect *IS* a bug, but that is a side note.)
If you want to change this system you have three options.
1) No longer require comprehensive testing of medical products before the public can use them. This historically led to things like heroin being marketed as a cure all wonder drug.
2) Spend more time testing and perfecting your product before you run it through the FDA's testing. As most medical products are just like non-medical products, they are usually (according to GAO, FDA and consumer reports) rushed to the market before adequate testing and refining is completed. Unsurprisingly software issues are the most common to get through government testing.
3) Require testing only for the first version of the product but not for "small changes". Actually this is how the law works. However the line for "small changes" is vague. Recently several doctors have been in legal trouble claiming that a device is approved because it is a small change over an existing approved item. The courts now have to decide how much change is required before the change is no longer "small".
My guess is that your company wants to avoid any kind of dispute and so just ignores the "small changes" bit of the law. It could also be that you have management that does not understand software. That is pretty common too.
This is a follow up to at least one story/. covered waaaay back. In the first article it basically has two points for why the employees objected. 1) They were already employees. Some had been for a VERY long time prior to being asked to do the background. 2) They felt threatened. Supervisors informed employees that they would either tell them all about there personal life, including sexual history and personal political views. They were told if they did not comply there existing contract would not be honored and they would be fired on the spot. Specifically they were told that if they did not sign a consent form they would be considered "voluntarily resigned".
The other item to consider is that all of these employees met all requirements when they were hired. They passed all criteria and background checks that the government decided was appropriate to hold these position. This background check came as part of a new requirement for all Federal employees. This is just the most public of MANY legal complaints against the new requirement.
From the employees legal breif:
... the court of appeals correctly concluded, based on the as-yet undeveloped factual record before it, that a preliminary injunction was warranted because "serious questions" regarding respondents' informational privacy claim were raised by NASA's decision to institute - for the first time in more than 50 years - background investigations of low-risk, long-time employees of the California Institute of Technology (which operates the Jet Propulsion Laboratory under a contract with NASA), including investigation regarding medical treatment or counseling for drug use and any "adverse" information about the employee, which could include investigation into private sexual matters.
As I have just pointed out, the new rules state that Thomas Jefferson's writings were not important to the Revolution. As everyone today knows, he was the primary author of the Deceleration of Independence. But school children taught under the new rules will NOT know that.
It is one thing to disagree with a belief or have a political view and want to support it. It is another thing entirely to re-write history with absolutely no regard for the truth. This is simply shameful.
Every side is entitled to try and promote their viewpoint. To let them get a vote like that by leaving is certainly an emotional statement but completely lacks the realization that; the vote was held, the tally counted, and voluntary absent to make a statement still means factual defeat.
There are 15 members of the board. All 15 voted. All 15 votes were counted. Exactly what is your point?
On top of that, when you have a majority of votes already publicly declared, the other side has lost. The anonymous coward OP is just spewing FUD because it is obvious that uninformed and biased non-educators have done something publicly shamming to us all and wants to defend them.
For Gods sake, the new rules state that Thomas Jefferson's writings were not important to the revolution. You know him, the AUTHOR of the DECELERATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
The ironic thing about Reaganomics is the huge increase spending that was enacted under his administration. That the top tax bracket also got huge tax cuts via "loopholes" and deductions while everyone else got a increase in taxes and a loss in "real wages" (income adjusted for inflation and the like) just added to the irony. And pain, can't for get the pain.
I found both 3 and 4 to be have some major holes in game play, UNTIL the expansions. Both games with all expansions on seemed like complete and very fun games.
Just wanted to point out that you are saying "unless we are evenly matched, I will win." I am sorry but that is absurd. If you have twice the units he does, you SHOULD win. If you both have a the same sized stack it should be more random.
In real life and in Civ the answer to a big army is... wait for it... ANOTHER BIG ARMY! The only real problem here is that it should be a viable strategy to split your stack into 3 stack and attack diffrents spots because this might be more fun. But to look at the same instance in real life, you will see that historically army's did create "big stacks" because it was more effective having the most men in one spot as you had a better chance against an opposing army (hence the term numerical advantage).
There are only a few times in history where a significantly outnumbered force won. They are the extremely rare exception. In almost all cases they either had vastly better training or equipment (both easily reflected in the game). The other two possibilities were better leadership and better terrain. These are reflected in the game but to a much lower extent, your Wall+Hill+River tile bonus does help quite a bit though.
According to many MS employees it used to be a standard practice to make spoof videos for any large employee gathering. My guess this video was just such a joke. I could be wrong though. *shrugs*
If you're a third party and you accidentally infect my iPhone with a trojan, can I come after you?
Yes, this is regardless of how you sell it or who you have to go through to sell it. This is the same if you bought the app from the app store, Best Buy or a guy on the side of the road.
If you have Apple behind you, I'm pretty sure a) they won't let that be offered for sale, and b) if they do, they'll make me whole.
1) Do you know ANYTHING about Apple's approval process? They DO NOT LOOK AT THE CODE. They use ineffective profiling software, next a guy looks at the GUI, then if someone complains they MIGHT take a look at something else after it has already been released.
2) What prevents me from giving false information to Apple when I create my vendor account? The only requirement that attempts to remedy this is tying the iTunes store account with a bank account. If my goal was to place trojan software on the app store I could easily create a bank account and do so using fraudulent information. Hey, whats one more crime when I am on a spree!
As for any guarantee from Apple? The agreement you make with the iTunes store prevents you form going after Apple. You can ask for a refund for your app, sure. But if you get collateral damage from running the app, you can't go after Apple.
Treating the app store any different than any other store is absurd. It in any legal sense is no different from Best Buy. You get no extra protections, you get no extra benefits, you do however, get extra penalties and restrictions on what you can do.
You are ignoring my point. Which is simply, many people find the requirements of many warranties morally offensive. To correct this, laws have been passed which in effect, void large sections of warranties that allow for the cancellation of said warranty.
To quote you,
where that warranty is not otherwise protected by statute for the purposes of public safety, as in the case of safety features)
In my friends case, the State law is very clear that the condition of the car at the time of the accident is the only thing relevant. If the car had remained in it's race track configuration it would have not qualified for warranty repairs. Since it did meet the all safety requirements at the time of the accident it did qualify. Just to be clear, all parties were aware that the modifications had been done (and undone).
As for the additions/alterations to his car. I am not by any means a car expert. I can say that one of the additions was a nitrous system. I am fairly confident that this would one of the things you claim would always void the warranty. He also tampered with the computer system. After the race (on a race track) the alterations were "undone" for lack of a better term and the car was brought back to street legal requirements.
And again, the warranty was honored. You can argue anything else you want but the simple fact is that all parties involve agreed that the law was clear on this issue and the man was paid.
To go back to the software issue. We have two issues. 1) Who OWNS the phone. 2) What rights does the owner have.
Under 17 U.S.C. 109 it is clear that if you PURCHASE a device you own that device. With the exception of the DMCA you have every right to do anything you want with that device. You can make any modifications you want and use it for any purpose (legal purpose). You can also re-sell that device. However Apple has placed several "security" measures on the iphone that prevent you from adding any software to the device without their permission.
"Well that does not matter you can always jailbreak the phone." Except under DMCA that is prohibited. See section 1201:
The reason this is all an issue is that currently the only legal way for me to place software I have created on a device I own is to. 1) Purchase a SDK. 2) Agree to a contract that restricts my freedom of speech (NDA). 3) Create the product, however I either have to do this on my own or only accept help from those who have also completed steps 1 and 2. Next if I want to share this application, I must then apply for approval to a third party which can reject my application for any reason.
You still have to be able to verify the data from a source outside of the card. If you don't have a way of outside identification then you can simply produce the cards your self. I can make a card with any information I want now. I could put my face, my fingerprint, my what-ever, encrypt it and use the name of "Mark Hammel McLovin" if I wanted. Without outside verification the card is worthless.
Your SSN is identifiable because you have the card it self (or just know your number) AND that number is stored by the government where they can cross reference it. The same is true for your drivers license, your ATM/Bank card. It is true for every European country's national ID.
As for the fallacy that encryption makes something safe, I would look at the history of any such claims. Encryption is merely one way of making things less dangerous not safe. To make a truly secure system you need to plan for it to fail safely. It WILL fail. The security is in designing it to fail smartly.
Again you can state this is true where YOU live, in YOUR jurisdiction. It is NOT true in my jurisdiction.
Why do I know this? Because several friends of mine race street cars. In one instance a friend did heavy modifications to his car. He disabled several safety features for a big race. Afterwords he re-enabled them.
At a latter date he was involved in a collision driving on the road. His car was still under warranty and he had the repairs done under the warranty. The company did try to deny his claim, at which point he mailed copies of the applicable statute and relevant proof that the car did meet statutory safety requirements at the time of accident. (He also highlighted the damages for illegally attempting to get out of the warranty, but I think this was more funny than effective). The warranty WAS honored.
Apple is not preventing, nor can they legally prevent, developers from developing apps for their own iPhones or other people's iPhones. This is why there are many apps available for so called "jailbroken" iPhones.
Actually they have been trying to do just that. It is Apple's stance that jail-breaking a phone is a violation of the DMCA (which it almost certainly is). According to Apple's view you would be committing a Federal crime by jail-breaking a phone you owned. The scarry part about the DMCA is that you most likely ARE committing a Federal crime when you jail-break your phone.
When the EFF tried to add in an exemption to the DMCA, Apple opposed the motion. You can read more in PC Worlds article. Or simply Google it:
This issue can pretty much be summed up by the first paragraph of section 1201:
`Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
The only defense in this situation would be fair use:
`(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
However you have to do all of the work your self:
`(b) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS- (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
Now these are only excerpts. You really NEED to read the entire statute to understand what is going on. The thing is massive. In my opinion it is written in such a away as to be terrible for the average product owner.
They don't have to allow anyone to develop for it.
Until the DMCA they didn't have a legal way of disallowing anyone from developing for the iphone either. The law has been very clear that once you purchase the hardware you can do anything you want to it. Except now you can not circumvent "security devices" even if it is used solely to place software you created on a device you own.
Also, it is not Apple's phone. It is Apple's design. It is owned by the person who bought the phone. You can argue that that person may have to agree to certain terms to access a given network, but once you have fully purchase a product it is yours. To say that someone else can tell me what to do with my own property is ridiculous. How would you feel if someone told you that you could only eat bread that was buttered in a certain way, or you could use your desktop/laptop but only view certain web sites?
Except your metaphor ignores many of the other requirements.
You make after market parts, well you can sell them, but you can't talk to anyone about what agreement we made. When you find out that one of your parts is defective, you can not inform your customers that it is defective. You can submit a fix and hope it gets approved and hope that your customers update/re-purchase your part (even if you offer it for free) before something bad happens to them. This applies even if this is a security fix and an immediate patch is both warranted by moral and legal requirements.
Also since we are talking about cars, I thought I would point out that so many people find the practice of voiding warranties with third party parts immoral and blatantly wrong, many States have pass laws making it entirely illegal.
In much of the US you can use any part you want and have complete access to all systems of a car legally. You only go into problems when a safety system is altered to not meet statutory legal safety standards AND an accident occurs. For example, if you disable safety systems for your race track driving then turn everything back on for street driving you are legally protected from the car company voiding your warranty (obviously you are not protected from damage caused during the race).
This may not apply to where you live, but as someone who has friends that race at PIR, I can assure you this is the case here.
Slashdot Mirror
Have any ministers, reverends or priests (even the PEDO ones) been assaulted by bands of roving atheists
Yes. In China religious persecution by the government is common. In one example a 70 year old Chinese christian pastor, the head of his local church, was beaten until rendered unconscious. Medical aid was prevented from being given to him. He latter died in prison due to injuries sustained in the beatings.
According to many human rights groups, stories such as this are not uncommon.
Lesson:
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. EVERYONE lives in glass houses, the more so if you claim that any group of people is not evil in some way. EVERY sufficiently large group of people has those within it that have committed vile and unspeakable acts.
Before the religious right we had the Imperialist. Before the Imperialist, we had manifest destiny. Before manifest destiny, we had land grabs in Appalachia (and along the entire colonial border). Before that we had a desire for religious freedom so we left England.
Live and let live was a concept that came about forty years ago, almost no one believed in it. It sounds good though so you see it on slogans.
We have a seperation between Church and State as LAW. We do not, nor did anyone (Founding Fathers) ever intend to require such a seperation on a personal level.
If someone truely belives in something and that something matches your values then you SHOULD want to vote for that person.
The problem only exists when people pander to a group of people with whom they don't share such values.
If we as Americans simply got back involved with politics as our grandparents and all of their ancestors did, we would be in a much better position to remove many of our false and pandering politicians.
Instead most Americans no longer involve themselves in the process. They simply get upset when someone tells them to. Then complain when their life changes in some negative way. If you don't like how something works, then get involved.
Actually there are several cases of atheist murderers terrorists attacking various religious groups.
Extremists are extremists. Some extremists kill people in the belief that it furthers their cause. It is irrelevant to their belief, you can find an example from any sufficiently large group of persons.
History has also shown us that those who resort to the most extreme and violent methods are also the most likely to have their views ignored.
Scientology is prohibited in Germany
Scientology is *NOT* prohibited in Germany. Because of the way "The Church of Scientology" operates, it is considered a for-profit corporation and not a religion in Germany.
Basically it is treated the same as Microsoft, Apple or IBM in Germany and not the Catholic Church.
All most all of those requirements are your companies policy not the FDA (aka Federal law). The FDA merely requires that a device is fully approved before it gets to the general public. If you make a device and it goes through all appropriate testing and gets approved then it can be sold. Everyone knows what you have. If you then make a change to the device, we no longer know "everything" about it and it has to go through the same testing before it gets approved. There is no requirement that you can only change a product if you have a new "requirement" or can only fix a defect if it is on a but list. (I would also state that any defect *IS* a bug, but that is a side note.)
If you want to change this system you have three options.
1) No longer require comprehensive testing of medical products before the public can use them. This historically led to things like heroin being marketed as a cure all wonder drug.
2) Spend more time testing and perfecting your product before you run it through the FDA's testing. As most medical products are just like non-medical products, they are usually (according to GAO, FDA and consumer reports) rushed to the market before adequate testing and refining is completed. Unsurprisingly software issues are the most common to get through government testing.
3) Require testing only for the first version of the product but not for "small changes". Actually this is how the law works. However the line for "small changes" is vague. Recently several doctors have been in legal trouble claiming that a device is approved because it is a small change over an existing approved item. The courts now have to decide how much change is required before the change is no longer "small".
My guess is that your company wants to avoid any kind of dispute and so just ignores the "small changes" bit of the law. It could also be that you have management that does not understand software. That is pretty common too.
This is a follow up to at least one story /. covered waaaay back. In the first article it basically has two points for why the employees objected. 1) They were already employees. Some had been for a VERY long time prior to being asked to do the background. 2) They felt threatened. Supervisors informed employees that they would either tell them all about there personal life, including sexual history and personal political views. They were told if they did not comply there existing contract would not be honored and they would be fired on the spot. Specifically they were told that if they did not sign a consent form they would be considered "voluntarily resigned".
The other item to consider is that all of these employees met all requirements when they were hired. They passed all criteria and background checks that the government decided was appropriate to hold these position. This background check came as part of a new requirement for all Federal employees. This is just the most public of MANY legal complaints against the new requirement.
From the employees legal breif:
=P Its a little known fact that they wanted really, REALLY slow independence. Like being free in molasses.
As I have just pointed out, the new rules state that Thomas Jefferson's writings were not important to the Revolution. As everyone today knows, he was the primary author of the Deceleration of Independence. But school children taught under the new rules will NOT know that.
It is one thing to disagree with a belief or have a political view and want to support it. It is another thing entirely to re-write history with absolutely no regard for the truth. This is simply shameful.
They also voted BEFORE walking out.
Every side is entitled to try and promote their viewpoint. To let them get a vote like that by leaving is certainly an emotional statement but completely lacks the realization that; the vote was held, the tally counted, and voluntary absent to make a statement still means factual defeat.
There are 15 members of the board. All 15 voted. All 15 votes were counted. Exactly what is your point?
On top of that, when you have a majority of votes already publicly declared, the other side has lost. The anonymous coward OP is just spewing FUD because it is obvious that uninformed and biased non-educators have done something publicly shamming to us all and wants to defend them.
For Gods sake, the new rules state that Thomas Jefferson's writings were not important to the revolution. You know him, the AUTHOR of the DECELERATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
The ironic thing about Reaganomics is the huge increase spending that was enacted under his administration. That the top tax bracket also got huge tax cuts via "loopholes" and deductions while everyone else got a increase in taxes and a loss in "real wages" (income adjusted for inflation and the like) just added to the irony. And pain, can't for get the pain.
I live in South Detroit, who do I have? *starts crying*
I found both 3 and 4 to be have some major holes in game play, UNTIL the expansions. Both games with all expansions on seemed like complete and very fun games.
Just wanted to point out that you are saying "unless we are evenly matched, I will win." I am sorry but that is absurd. If you have twice the units he does, you SHOULD win. If you both have a the same sized stack it should be more random.
In real life and in Civ the answer to a big army is ... wait for it ... ANOTHER BIG ARMY! The only real problem here is that it should be a viable strategy to split your stack into 3 stack and attack diffrents spots because this might be more fun. But to look at the same instance in real life, you will see that historically army's did create "big stacks" because it was more effective having the most men in one spot as you had a better chance against an opposing army (hence the term numerical advantage).
There are only a few times in history where a significantly outnumbered force won. They are the extremely rare exception. In almost all cases they either had vastly better training or equipment (both easily reflected in the game). The other two possibilities were better leadership and better terrain. These are reflected in the game but to a much lower extent, your Wall+Hill+River tile bonus does help quite a bit though.
=P
Interestingly enough, John Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, does talk about this very subject.
According to many MS employees it used to be a standard practice to make spoof videos for any large employee gathering. My guess this video was just such a joke. I could be wrong though. *shrugs*
I especially like the, "EXCEPT IN NEBRASKA!" bit.
If you're a third party and you accidentally infect my iPhone with a trojan, can I come after you?
Yes, this is regardless of how you sell it or who you have to go through to sell it. This is the same if you bought the app from the app store, Best Buy or a guy on the side of the road.
If you have Apple behind you, I'm pretty sure a) they won't let that be offered for sale, and b) if they do, they'll make me whole.
1) Do you know ANYTHING about Apple's approval process? They DO NOT LOOK AT THE CODE. They use ineffective profiling software, next a guy looks at the GUI, then if someone complains they MIGHT take a look at something else after it has already been released.
2) What prevents me from giving false information to Apple when I create my vendor account? The only requirement that attempts to remedy this is tying the iTunes store account with a bank account. If my goal was to place trojan software on the app store I could easily create a bank account and do so using fraudulent information. Hey, whats one more crime when I am on a spree!
As for any guarantee from Apple? The agreement you make with the iTunes store prevents you form going after Apple. You can ask for a refund for your app, sure. But if you get collateral damage from running the app, you can't go after Apple.
Treating the app store any different than any other store is absurd. It in any legal sense is no different from Best Buy. You get no extra protections, you get no extra benefits, you do however, get extra penalties and restrictions on what you can do.
To quote you,
where that warranty is not otherwise protected by statute for the purposes of public safety, as in the case of safety features)
In my friends case, the State law is very clear that the condition of the car at the time of the accident is the only thing relevant. If the car had remained in it's race track configuration it would have not qualified for warranty repairs. Since it did meet the all safety requirements at the time of the accident it did qualify. Just to be clear, all parties were aware that the modifications had been done (and undone).
As for the additions/alterations to his car. I am not by any means a car expert. I can say that one of the additions was a nitrous system. I am fairly confident that this would one of the things you claim would always void the warranty. He also tampered with the computer system. After the race (on a race track) the alterations were "undone" for lack of a better term and the car was brought back to street legal requirements.
And again, the warranty was honored. You can argue anything else you want but the simple fact is that all parties involve agreed that the law was clear on this issue and the man was paid.
To go back to the software issue. We have two issues. 1) Who OWNS the phone. 2) What rights does the owner have.
Under 17 U.S.C. 109 it is clear that if you PURCHASE a device you own that device. With the exception of the DMCA you have every right to do anything you want with that device. You can make any modifications you want and use it for any purpose (legal purpose). You can also re-sell that device. However Apple has placed several "security" measures on the iphone that prevent you from adding any software to the device without their permission.
"Well that does not matter you can always jailbreak the phone." Except under DMCA that is prohibited. See section 1201:
http://w2.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_19981020_pl105-304.html
Apple's view is that it is a Federal crime for you to place software on your phone unless they approve it: http://www.pcworld.com/article/159532/apple_files_opposition_to_dmca_exemption_for_jailbreaking.html
The reason this is all an issue is that currently the only legal way for me to place software I have created on a device I own is to. 1) Purchase a SDK. 2) Agree to a contract that restricts my freedom of speech (NDA). 3) Create the product, however I either have to do this on my own or only accept help from those who have also completed steps 1 and 2. Next if I want to share this application, I must then apply for approval to a third party which can reject my application for any reason.
You still have to be able to verify the data from a source outside of the card. If you don't have a way of outside identification then you can simply produce the cards your self. I can make a card with any information I want now. I could put my face, my fingerprint, my what-ever, encrypt it and use the name of "Mark Hammel McLovin" if I wanted. Without outside verification the card is worthless.
Your SSN is identifiable because you have the card it self (or just know your number) AND that number is stored by the government where they can cross reference it. The same is true for your drivers license, your ATM/Bank card. It is true for every European country's national ID.
As for the fallacy that encryption makes something safe, I would look at the history of any such claims. Encryption is merely one way of making things less dangerous not safe. To make a truly secure system you need to plan for it to fail safely. It WILL fail. The security is in designing it to fail smartly.
Obligatory XKCD difference:
http://xkcd.com/538/
Again you can state this is true where YOU live, in YOUR jurisdiction. It is NOT true in my jurisdiction.
Why do I know this? Because several friends of mine race street cars. In one instance a friend did heavy modifications to his car. He disabled several safety features for a big race. Afterwords he re-enabled them.
At a latter date he was involved in a collision driving on the road. His car was still under warranty and he had the repairs done under the warranty. The company did try to deny his claim, at which point he mailed copies of the applicable statute and relevant proof that the car did meet statutory safety requirements at the time of accident. (He also highlighted the damages for illegally attempting to get out of the warranty, but I think this was more funny than effective). The warranty WAS honored.
Apple is not preventing, nor can they legally prevent, developers from developing apps for their own iPhones or other people's iPhones. This is why there are many apps available for so called "jailbroken" iPhones.
Actually they have been trying to do just that. It is Apple's stance that jail-breaking a phone is a violation of the DMCA (which it almost certainly is). According to Apple's view you would be committing a Federal crime by jail-breaking a phone you owned. The scarry part about the DMCA is that you most likely ARE committing a Federal crime when you jail-break your phone.
When the EFF tried to add in an exemption to the DMCA, Apple opposed the motion. You can read more in PC Worlds article. Or simply Google it:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/159532/apple_files_opposition_to_dmca_exemption_for_jailbreaking.html
While you really need to read the full text of the DMCA to fully appreciate what is going on. You can find the full text here:
http://w2.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_19981020_pl105-304.html
Or here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2281.ENR:
This issue can pretty much be summed up by the first paragraph of section 1201:
The only defense in this situation would be fair use:
However you have to do all of the work your self:
`(b) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS- (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
Now these are only excerpts. You really NEED to read the entire statute to understand what is going on. The thing is massive. In my opinion it is written in such a away as to be terrible for the average product owner.
They don't have to allow anyone to develop for it.
Until the DMCA they didn't have a legal way of disallowing anyone from developing for the iphone either. The law has been very clear that once you purchase the hardware you can do anything you want to it. Except now you can not circumvent "security devices" even if it is used solely to place software you created on a device you own.
Also, it is not Apple's phone. It is Apple's design. It is owned by the person who bought the phone. You can argue that that person may have to agree to certain terms to access a given network, but once you have fully purchase a product it is yours. To say that someone else can tell me what to do with my own property is ridiculous. How would you feel if someone told you that you could only eat bread that was buttered in a certain way, or you could use your desktop/laptop but only view certain web sites?
Except your metaphor ignores many of the other requirements.
You make after market parts, well you can sell them, but you can't talk to anyone about what agreement we made. When you find out that one of your parts is defective, you can not inform your customers that it is defective. You can submit a fix and hope it gets approved and hope that your customers update/re-purchase your part (even if you offer it for free) before something bad happens to them. This applies even if this is a security fix and an immediate patch is both warranted by moral and legal requirements.
Also since we are talking about cars, I thought I would point out that so many people find the practice of voiding warranties with third party parts immoral and blatantly wrong, many States have pass laws making it entirely illegal.
In much of the US you can use any part you want and have complete access to all systems of a car legally. You only go into problems when a safety system is altered to not meet statutory legal safety standards AND an accident occurs. For example, if you disable safety systems for your race track driving then turn everything back on for street driving you are legally protected from the car company voiding your warranty (obviously you are not protected from damage caused during the race).
This may not apply to where you live, but as someone who has friends that race at PIR, I can assure you this is the case here.