Clearly Apple has no justification upon which to resist this order and should comply forthwith.
How about due process and the right to appeal a decision? Or this week's precedent from the US District Court, District of Eastern New York regarding the exact same issue? Does Apple lose all their legal rights just because the FBI throws a hissy fit?
You're right. It is not just a few lines of code. It is one bit.
#define ENABLE_SELF_DESTRUCT_INCORRECT_PIN 1
The FBI is asking for the 1 to be changed to a 0.
Assuming, you are not just ignorant or a troll, maybe you should read the court order. They are ordering Apple to create a whole new class of software that RUNS ONLY IN RAM and does not replace or alter the existing firmware or data saved on the phone. This DOES NOT EXIST!!!! It has never existed. It is a whole new class of iphone software that has not been written. It is NOT a matter of changing a few constants and uploading it to the phone. They have to design a new product, test it and sign it.
Aside from the fact that it may be piss poor precedent to forcibly conscript a company to do considerable work which is in opposition to their conscience and business reputation, it is morally repugnant.
I don't know about you, but if my employer failed to meet payroll, I would be applying for unemployment. If you are working and aren't getting paid, you are unemployed. That's called a hobby, or charity. I would be looking for the exits a long time before the company dropped the papers off at the courthouse.
Your explanation is not inconsistent with mine. Payroll and pension have priority and "Unsecured debt and stockholders are the ones that are mostly fucked." Yes, buddies of management get theirs, but the general shareholder gets nothing.
the ads are the reason we are able to enjoy the freedom of free content. By blocking the ads, you are essentially stealing the content.
I wondered how long it would be before some idiot threw this one out.
Since you are obviously clueless, let me explain how it works. I connect to your site and request you to transmit a webpage to me. If you willingly send that page, I cannot be accused of stealing because I don't look at the entire thing. In fact, I revel in the fact that I block your ads. I am astonished at how bad the experience can be when you do not block. When I am asked to look at somebody's computer, the FIRST thing I do is install an adblocker. I have NEVER had anyone ask me to remove it.
a more proximate cause is Yellow Cab losing an $8 million accident liability suit by a passenger who is now paralyzed. [...] So much for the medallion cab argument that they offer superior liability coverage.
Ehem, you did notice that the first and last sentence contradict each other? If they had to pay out $8 mio. then obviously they do offer liability coverage, otherwise the cab driver and/or his insurance would have paid.
No it doesn't. It is an unsecured debt on their bankruptcy petition. Therefore, it HAS NOT BEEN PAID. If they had adequate insurance coverage, they would not be listing it on their debts.
Chapter 11 is a restructuring of debt. Debts must be paid and the creditors must agree on the restructuring, or else the company is forced into Chapter 7, which is liquidation. In liquidation, employee salaries are considered a priority debt. Pension payments for the past 180 days are also priority debts. Unsecured debt and stockholders are the ones that are mostly fucked. They are at the ass end of the line of creditors.
Don't confuse Chapter 11 bankruptcy with Chapter 13 personal bankruptcy.
I always though Rickman's over-the-top cartoonish portrayal of the Sheriff ruined that movie. It was like having a Disney sidekick. Of course, Costner's lackluster performance of Robin wasn't helping. Other than that one role, I thought Rickman's other work was "brilliant." God I hate using that term as much as the Brits hate "Awesome."
My understanding of the situation is that the heirs have a very tenuous thread hanging onto their interpretation of the required renewal of the copyright. I expect if that is true, CBS will squash them to make an example out of them. Whatever the case, until the parties all bring their paperwork to the table and we see what the license agreements actually say, I wouldn't be betting on anybody to win.
renewal fees are needed so we don't the DMCA issues with orphan works / Abandonware that in some cases are not even sold any more but can't be put out for people to use.
Amen! And the renewal fees should increase over time since the work was copyrighted. If it's not profitable enough to pay for a renewal, it should be in the public domain. That will put a quick end to these "submarine" copyrights.
[...] Empire, which is still clearly the best of the lot
Empire is the least cringeworthy of all the movies for sure. There are some bad moments, but overall the best acting and dialog. However, my biggest complaint with the movie is that I felt like there was no real "complete" story. There was no central story arc. No common story thread to tie all the loose pieces together. No catharsis or resolution. It is just character development during which "some stuff happens" with a side story to introduce Yoda. Even that part was screwy with the nonsensical Darth Vader cave bit. What made it memorable was the dialog. It is very quotable.
And the Empire really didn't strike back. It was pretty weak if they did. The rebels lost a temporary hideout/safehouse (before they could even unpack their shit and finish setting up camp) but they escaped pretty much unscathed despite facing an overwhelming armed force. Only Han suffered a bit, but yet survived for some reason. Why would the Empire allow him to survive but still be totally brutal and ruthless to the inhabitants of Alderaan, Oncle Owen, Auth Beru, Ben Kenobi, Captain Needa, and others? I guess consistency and continuity is not George's strong suit.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
I used Yahoo when they were top dog as my primary search engine back in the day. They were the big guys then. Unfortunately, they were the first to jump whole hog onto the pop-up/pop-under bandwagon. That was before browser plugin and built-in pop-up blockers had been created. Every click regenerated a new pop-up. Their site instantly became unusable. (Remember X-10, anyone?)
It took me less than 24 hours and I found this new relatively unknown search engine called Google, people had been talking about which had a nice clean interface and NO POP-UPS. I changed my homepage and never looked back. Yahoo shot themselves in the foot and gave Google a serious foothold in the market they owned. When they became a "portal", I knew they were done. They damaged their brand, fell behind in technology and eventually became an also-ran.
Count me in the Joel camp. I wanted to like MST3K after Joel left, but I thought it wasn't as funny. Mike just didn't have a delivery I thought was as good. I lost interest and hadn't watched for some time when it was cancelled.
But this does bring up a question. If Joel was so unhappy and had to leave to "pursue other opportunities," why has he spent the rest of his life trying to do the same thing he walked away from? Twenty years later and he's trying to resurrect the project he abandoned.
Of course you can. Businesses change their terms of service all the time. You're not entitled to endlessly exploit any business that has set unprofitable terms, so needs to change policies.
That is not in question. The question is should companies that knowingly advertise a product or service be obligated to pay a penalty for changing said product or service after the customer has paid for it. As I recall, Office 365 was a subscription up for up to four years. I am fine with Microsoft's terms of service allowing changes as long as they offer a full refund of any unused portion of the subscription. Offering to allow the customer to disagree with the changes and only giving them the option of cancelling the service, forfeiting any payment, is pure bullshit.
Yes they DO leave voicemails, while still following FCC/CRTC guidelines. Its called careful wording.
Source: Someone who runs a national Collection Agency Automated Dialer
Some careful wording... They leave a message telling you who the call is for and telling you to hang up if it is not for you. They wait a few seconds and begin their spiel about owing them money. I figure it's just a matter of time until someone takes them to court for violating the rules.
Get a VOIP service that supports NoMoRobo. I pay $169 for two years unlimited service. I turned on NoMoRobo and it blocks telemarketers, debt collectors, surveys and political calls. I LOVE it! The phone rings about half a ring and then when callerID hits, they pick up and announce that my line is protected by NoMoRobo and they cannot reach my number. I don't even bother to move unless my phone starts to ring a second time.
It is a rare occasion when I get a nuisance call these days,
I had a debt collector calling my house and hanging up for six months before they made robocalling illegal and I didn't even know who was calling or why. After I finally got my first call by a real human it was obvious they were looking for someone I did not know with the same last name as me. It took another three months to get them to stop calling despite them obviously calling numbers at random. I had to escalate to a supervisor and threaten filing a lawsuit and reporting them to the State Attorney General's office to finally get them to stop.
Up until recently I had them calling my home, my cell, and my son's Tracfone looking for my ex-wife who I divorced nearly nine years ago.
They called all hours, day and night. Those people are the lowest form of scum.
Smith v Maryland (1979) says that phone call records, as "business records" provided to a third party, do not have an expectation of privacy, and are not covered by the Fourth Amendment. And the only data within that haystack that we care about are the foreign intelligence needles. I know that's difficult to comprehend, but it's the law of the land, unless and until SCOTUS reverses that ruling. And they very well may.
Until that happens, "We're pretty aggressive within the law. As a professional, Iâ(TM)m troubled if I'm not using the full authority allowed by law." -- General Michael Hayden
And when the full authority of the law is insufficient to do whatever they want, they will search until they find a creative lawyer to offer a legal opinion to redefine what the law really means and justify whatever they want to do. http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
You might also want to update your sources, Mr. apologist. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the law overseeing data collection could not be interpreted to have permitted the NSA to collect a "staggering" amount of phone records, contrary to claims by the Bush and Obama administrations. Lucky for them, Congress amended the law, moving the goalposts in mid game.
Hopefully, you will find this as easy to comprehend as the Smith v Maryland case. And before you start wiping the brown off your nose and begin frothing at the mouth with another justification, I know it hasn't made it to the Supreme Court yet. Hopefully, you noticed Governor Jerry Brown signed the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act law yesterday. That should give you a clue that you are on the wrong side of this issue.
If you're an American (or frankly, any innocent person) anywhere in the world who isn't an active member of a foreign terrorist organization or an agent of a foreign power, the Intelligence Community DOES NOT CARE ABOUT and actually DOES NOT WANT your data.
The last I heard there was a pen register standing order in effect for ALL cell phone metadata for all the major US carriers. It was only recently renewed in September. Unless there was an active exception for "Dave Schroeder, NSA apologist" I would say your argument falls apart. If they "DOES NOT WANT" my data, maybe they shouldn't be asking for it. Or retroactively changing laws to make what was illegal when it was secret, to be legal now that everyone knows.
The hardware fix may well be a urea injector, like previous models used. That wouldn't have any material effect on performance or fuel economy. If the cost of adding it is paid by VW, there's no reason not to.
When the fix is mostly hardware modification, it's hard to blame the problem solely on software engineers!
Is VW also going to eat the cost of purchasing all the DEF to refill those reservoirs over the life of those vehicles? If the "fix" is to install an exhaust injector, I see a financial incentive to pass on that repair.
Meredith was totally within his rights - his private property was being invaded. Fuck the owners of the drone - they are idiots, and the true criminals in this case. If someone flies a drone over my property, it's toast. And I'll fight any legal nonsense that ensues right on up to the Supreme Court (for what that's worth). This has to be gotten under control, now. People have NO RIGHT to fly their drones over private property. They could be recording video, they could even be toting firearms. Shoot first, ask questions later.
And frothing-at-the-mouth authoritarians like you are the reason we have cops killing people left and right for nonsense reasons and people are shooting each other for perceived slights. This past week in Cincinnati, a College cop put a slug in a guys brain because he didn't have front license plates. In Florida, some nutcase blew away a guy in front of his family because he was driving aggressively and followed him. People are too quick to anger and dispense vigilante justice without thinking about the consequences.
I believe the term "pocket dial" precedes "butt dial." I recall hearing the term pocket dial back in '99 when I got my first "candy bar" phone. That was in the days before everyone slipped their slim smart phone into their back pocket and it became "butt dial."
Slashdot Mirror
How about due process and the right to appeal a decision? Or this week's precedent from the US District Court, District of Eastern New York regarding the exact same issue? Does Apple lose all their legal rights just because the FBI throws a hissy fit?
You're right. It is not just a few lines of code. It is one bit.
#define ENABLE_SELF_DESTRUCT_INCORRECT_PIN 1
The FBI is asking for the 1 to be changed to a 0.
Assuming, you are not just ignorant or a troll, maybe you should read the court order. They are ordering Apple to create a whole new class of software that RUNS ONLY IN RAM and does not replace or alter the existing firmware or data saved on the phone. This DOES NOT EXIST!!!! It has never existed. It is a whole new class of iphone software that has not been written. It is NOT a matter of changing a few constants and uploading it to the phone. They have to design a new product, test it and sign it.
Aside from the fact that it may be piss poor precedent to forcibly conscript a company to do considerable work which is in opposition to their conscience and business reputation, it is morally repugnant.
I don't know about you, but if my employer failed to meet payroll, I would be applying for unemployment. If you are working and aren't getting paid, you are unemployed. That's called a hobby, or charity. I would be looking for the exits a long time before the company dropped the papers off at the courthouse.
Your explanation is not inconsistent with mine. Payroll and pension have priority and "Unsecured debt and stockholders are the ones that are mostly fucked." Yes, buddies of management get theirs, but the general shareholder gets nothing.
the ads are the reason we are able to enjoy the freedom of free content. By blocking the ads, you are essentially stealing the content.
I wondered how long it would be before some idiot threw this one out.
Since you are obviously clueless, let me explain how it works. I connect to your site and request you to transmit a webpage to me. If you willingly send that page, I cannot be accused of stealing because I don't look at the entire thing. In fact, I revel in the fact that I block your ads. I am astonished at how bad the experience can be when you do not block. When I am asked to look at somebody's computer, the FIRST thing I do is install an adblocker. I have NEVER had anyone ask me to remove it.
a more proximate cause is Yellow Cab losing an $8 million accident liability suit by a passenger who is now paralyzed. [...] So much for the medallion cab argument that they offer superior liability coverage.
Ehem, you did notice that the first and last sentence contradict each other? If they had to pay out $8 mio. then obviously they do offer liability coverage, otherwise the cab driver and/or his insurance would have paid.
No it doesn't. It is an unsecured debt on their bankruptcy petition. Therefore, it HAS NOT BEEN PAID. If they had adequate insurance coverage, they would not be listing it on their debts.
Wrong. Just wrong...
Chapter 11 is a restructuring of debt. Debts must be paid and the creditors must agree on the restructuring, or else the company is forced into Chapter 7, which is liquidation. In liquidation, employee salaries are considered a priority debt. Pension payments for the past 180 days are also priority debts. Unsecured debt and stockholders are the ones that are mostly fucked. They are at the ass end of the line of creditors.
Don't confuse Chapter 11 bankruptcy with Chapter 13 personal bankruptcy.
I always though Rickman's over-the-top cartoonish portrayal of the Sheriff ruined that movie. It was like having a Disney sidekick. Of course, Costner's lackluster performance of Robin wasn't helping. Other than that one role, I thought Rickman's other work was "brilliant." God I hate using that term as much as the Brits hate "Awesome."
My understanding of the situation is that the heirs have a very tenuous thread hanging onto their interpretation of the required renewal of the copyright. I expect if that is true, CBS will squash them to make an example out of them. Whatever the case, until the parties all bring their paperwork to the table and we see what the license agreements actually say, I wouldn't be betting on anybody to win.
renewal fees are needed so we don't the DMCA issues with orphan works / Abandonware that in some cases are not even sold any more but can't be put out for people to use.
Amen! And the renewal fees should increase over time since the work was copyrighted. If it's not profitable enough to pay for a renewal, it should be in the public domain. That will put a quick end to these "submarine" copyrights.
Empire is the least cringeworthy of all the movies for sure. There are some bad moments, but overall the best acting and dialog. However, my biggest complaint with the movie is that I felt like there was no real "complete" story. There was no central story arc. No common story thread to tie all the loose pieces together. No catharsis or resolution. It is just character development during which "some stuff happens" with a side story to introduce Yoda. Even that part was screwy with the nonsensical Darth Vader cave bit. What made it memorable was the dialog. It is very quotable.
And the Empire really didn't strike back. It was pretty weak if they did. The rebels lost a temporary hideout/safehouse (before they could even unpack their shit and finish setting up camp) but they escaped pretty much unscathed despite facing an overwhelming armed force. Only Han suffered a bit, but yet survived for some reason. Why would the Empire allow him to survive but still be totally brutal and ruthless to the inhabitants of Alderaan, Oncle Owen, Auth Beru, Ben Kenobi, Captain Needa, and others? I guess consistency and continuity is not George's strong suit.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
- C.S. Lewis
I used Yahoo when they were top dog as my primary search engine back in the day. They were the big guys then. Unfortunately, they were the first to jump whole hog onto the pop-up/pop-under bandwagon. That was before browser plugin and built-in pop-up blockers had been created. Every click regenerated a new pop-up. Their site instantly became unusable. (Remember X-10, anyone?)
It took me less than 24 hours and I found this new relatively unknown search engine called Google, people had been talking about which had a nice clean interface and NO POP-UPS. I changed my homepage and never looked back. Yahoo shot themselves in the foot and gave Google a serious foothold in the market they owned. When they became a "portal", I knew they were done. They damaged their brand, fell behind in technology and eventually became an also-ran.
Count me in the Joel camp. I wanted to like MST3K after Joel left, but I thought it wasn't as funny. Mike just didn't have a delivery I thought was as good. I lost interest and hadn't watched for some time when it was cancelled.
But this does bring up a question. If Joel was so unhappy and had to leave to "pursue other opportunities," why has he spent the rest of his life trying to do the same thing he walked away from? Twenty years later and he's trying to resurrect the project he abandoned.
Europeans whine about free stuff, news at 11.
Since when is an Office365 subscription free? I'd like in on that deal too.
Of course you can. Businesses change their terms of service all the time. You're not entitled to endlessly exploit any business that has set unprofitable terms, so needs to change policies.
That is not in question. The question is should companies that knowingly advertise a product or service be obligated to pay a penalty for changing said product or service after the customer has paid for it. As I recall, Office 365 was a subscription up for up to four years. I am fine with Microsoft's terms of service allowing changes as long as they offer a full refund of any unused portion of the subscription. Offering to allow the customer to disagree with the changes and only giving them the option of cancelling the service, forfeiting any payment, is pure bullshit.
Yes they DO leave voicemails, while still following FCC/CRTC guidelines. Its called careful wording.
Source: Someone who runs a national Collection Agency Automated Dialer
Some careful wording... They leave a message telling you who the call is for and telling you to hang up if it is not for you. They wait a few seconds and begin their spiel about owing them money. I figure it's just a matter of time until someone takes them to court for violating the rules.
Look at the Mr. Number app.
Get a VOIP service that supports NoMoRobo. I pay $169 for two years unlimited service. I turned on NoMoRobo and it blocks telemarketers, debt collectors, surveys and political calls. I LOVE it! The phone rings about half a ring and then when callerID hits, they pick up and announce that my line is protected by NoMoRobo and they cannot reach my number. I don't even bother to move unless my phone starts to ring a second time.
It is a rare occasion when I get a nuisance call these days,
Pay your bills, no one calls.
Horse-Fucking-Shit!!!!
I had a debt collector calling my house and hanging up for six months before they made robocalling illegal and I didn't even know who was calling or why. After I finally got my first call by a real human it was obvious they were looking for someone I did not know with the same last name as me. It took another three months to get them to stop calling despite them obviously calling numbers at random. I had to escalate to a supervisor and threaten filing a lawsuit and reporting them to the State Attorney General's office to finally get them to stop.
Up until recently I had them calling my home, my cell, and my son's Tracfone looking for my ex-wife who I divorced nearly nine years ago.
They called all hours, day and night. Those people are the lowest form of scum.
Yeah, and guess what?
Smith v Maryland (1979) says that phone call records, as "business records" provided to a third party, do not have an expectation of privacy, and are not covered by the Fourth Amendment. And the only data within that haystack that we care about are the foreign intelligence needles. I know that's difficult to comprehend, but it's the law of the land, unless and until SCOTUS reverses that ruling. And they very well may.
Until that happens, "We're pretty aggressive within the law. As a professional, Iâ(TM)m troubled if I'm not using the full authority allowed by law." -- General Michael Hayden
And when the full authority of the law is insufficient to do whatever they want, they will search until they find a creative lawyer to offer a legal opinion to redefine what the law really means and justify whatever they want to do. http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
You might also want to update your sources, Mr. apologist. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the law overseeing data collection could not be interpreted to have permitted the NSA to collect a "staggering" amount of phone records, contrary to claims by the Bush and Obama administrations. Lucky for them, Congress amended the law, moving the goalposts in mid game.
https://www.aclu.org/legal-doc...
Hopefully, you will find this as easy to comprehend as the Smith v Maryland case. And before you start wiping the brown off your nose and begin frothing at the mouth with another justification, I know it hasn't made it to the Supreme Court yet. Hopefully, you noticed Governor Jerry Brown signed the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act law yesterday. That should give you a clue that you are on the wrong side of this issue.
The last I heard there was a pen register standing order in effect for ALL cell phone metadata for all the major US carriers. It was only recently renewed in September. Unless there was an active exception for "Dave Schroeder, NSA apologist" I would say your argument falls apart. If they "DOES NOT WANT" my data, maybe they shouldn't be asking for it. Or retroactively changing laws to make what was illegal when it was secret, to be legal now that everyone knows.
The hardware fix may well be a urea injector, like previous models used. That wouldn't have any material effect on performance or fuel economy. If the cost of adding it is paid by VW, there's no reason not to.
When the fix is mostly hardware modification, it's hard to blame the problem solely on software engineers!
Is VW also going to eat the cost of purchasing all the DEF to refill those reservoirs over the life of those vehicles? If the "fix" is to install an exhaust injector, I see a financial incentive to pass on that repair.
Meredith was totally within his rights - his private property was being invaded. Fuck the owners of the drone - they are idiots, and the true criminals in this case. If someone flies a drone over my property, it's toast. And I'll fight any legal nonsense that ensues right on up to the Supreme Court (for what that's worth). This has to be gotten under control, now. People have NO RIGHT to fly their drones over private property. They could be recording video, they could even be toting firearms. Shoot first, ask questions later.
And frothing-at-the-mouth authoritarians like you are the reason we have cops killing people left and right for nonsense reasons and people are shooting each other for perceived slights. This past week in Cincinnati, a College cop put a slug in a guys brain because he didn't have front license plates. In Florida, some nutcase blew away a guy in front of his family because he was driving aggressively and followed him. People are too quick to anger and dispense vigilante justice without thinking about the consequences.
I believe the term "pocket dial" precedes "butt dial." I recall hearing the term pocket dial back in '99 when I got my first "candy bar" phone. That was in the days before everyone slipped their slim smart phone into their back pocket and it became "butt dial."