And while the related article suggests higher costs for internet access, the real truth is that the costs will be less, but the direct cost to end-users will likely be slightly higher until competition kicks in. This is almost entirely due to all the hidden costs not being legal and/or feasible under Title II, so you'll see everything up-front. At that point, providers will have to compete based on QoS, support, tech investment, and actual sticker price. Much of the other payola etc. won't be worth the cost.
Waitaminute -- either it's a replica of THE Tardis, in which case it looks like an old UK police call box (and they could install a working phone and call it a security shelter), or it's a replica of a generic TARDIS, in which case they could just reconfigure it to look like a rosebush and everyone would be happy.
What about the small startup that wants to deploy a low latency service but can't afford to install a caching server on every street corner like the big corporations do? A paid prioritization scheme would be a good, low cost workaround for these little guys that want to deliver the same snappiness as the big players. Or what about real-time services like VoIP, medical appliances, games, etc that would benefit from prioritization?
The small startup that wants to deploy a low latency service needs to sign agreements with those who they want to provide that service to. Paid prioritization won't give them anything they don't already have, and would likely price them out of the market completely. Real-time services like VoIP aren't affected, as this is a different issue (as has been explained repeatedly, ad nauseum). Medical appliances? If they're depending on ping time or bandwidth for life-critical functions, that's a design flaw. Games? This goes back to your first scenario: games can already use Akamai/Azure/etc. which have local caching. If you discover you've suddenly become really big and those networks can't build out your support anymore... well, then you're no longer a little player and should be able to afford to install your own caching servers (which the last mile ISPs should be more than happy to install).
I'm not sure if you're intentionally conflating the issues, or just unclear what's going on at the technical level. Hopefully it's the second.
Instead of letting these business models work itself out, we want to quash any new innovation while totally ignoring the real problem - zero ISP competition.
You might want to quash any new innovation, but the rest of us want to limit abuse by entrenched players -- abuse which already exists and is well documented, which happens whenever they're not legislated to prevent it. This entrenchment is also used to limit ISP competition, as you can't start up a new ISP without navigating the loops and hurdles erected by the current players. Title II would actually level this playing field, and make things slightly easier for new ISPs, while limiting abuses by the entrenched players. This is because Title II doesn't actually place too many requirements on the service providers until they start building out expensive and complex solutions -- at which point navigating the rules becomes more expensive and complex, which richer and more complex companies should be able to manage with minimal difficulty. It's mostly about transparency and accountability -- the more you do that could hide abusive practices, the more closely you have to report your actions. You can see why the entrenched players don't like this option.
You know, it should raise some eye brows that the biggest proponents of NN are these tech giants like Google and Netflix. They want to regulate the ISPs to keep their own delivery costs down and protect their own bottom line - in the end they don't give any more of a shit about your 'Internet freedom' than the likes of Comcast and Verizon.
Why? Google and Netflix (and Blizzard and TekSavvy) want to regulate the ISPs to prevent double dipping and abuse of a shared resource. Of course they want to keep their own delivery costs down and protect their own bottom lines -- but that's a straw man here. Just as I should not have to pay Google, NetFlix, Comcast and Cox separately to receive one stream of data, neither should any other node on the Internet have to pay to send data over a network that I've already paid to receive. That would be like me paying a toll on a road to get to work, and then the road owners turning around and billing my employer to let me get to work as well -- and then turning around and also billing the separate entity(s) that own the on and offramps to that road. Once I've paid to use that road, other people who want to do business with me shouldn't have to pay for me to use that road as well.
But all can't buy edge/cache servers placed directly on a vast amount of ISP premises, which is in fact buying a faster pipe to the consumer (done today by CDNs and services that are big enough to in fact be their own CDN), should that be forbidden then? That would have significant negative impact on many services we take for granted today.
There's nothing wrong with buying a faster pipe to the consumer -- the problem is in buying priority on the existing pipe.
Think of it this way: net neutrality is about having a single set of speed laws that apply to everyone, no matter how much money they pay for insurance/tolls/etc.
On-Prem caching is more like moving some of your company's employees to the county where they work, so that they don't have to travel as many of the roads. Sure, not all companies can do this, but doing it eases the congestion for everyone, which is a good thing.
Sports and News are usually available for a short period of time on the broadcaster's own website for streaming. Same is true for many current show episodes and other new content. Usually you have to prove you're subscribed to the content to view it after the first week.
I agree... the inclusion of the SpellCaster games, for instance, is somewhat odd -- as is leaving out some of the classics that shaped how future game design went, and shaped many common catch phrases in use today.
Oak Island is actually very interesting. The more you read into the history and find all the weird stuff going on, the more it seems like there ha,b.D,/b> to be SOMETHING down there. The intricacies of what has been found to date preclude it being some sort of prank.
FTFY.
I'm sure all sorts of things happened at Oak Island -- but the truth is, that most people who find a place designed to protect "hidden treasure" will follow all the clues only to find that someone else, hundreds (or thousands) of years ago beat them to it. In the case of pirate treasure, it's likely to be someone who was connected with the whole thing in the first place, and any gold from there is now sitting in Ft. Knox.
While there are still interesting things to be found in the world, most have already been discovered by someone at least once before. Most people in the past had good reason not to let anyone else know what they found. Nowadays, there's even more reason, unless you go for full disclosure and TV rights. But most stuff isn't found by years of painstaking research, it's found by accident.
Discovery channel was a lot better (as far as I remember it several years ago): one third about nazi/WW2, on third about dinosaurs, and the last third about sharks.
And Mythbusters... where they had liberal doses of WW2 and sharks (don't remember a dinosaur episode).
Don't the mini quakes release energy from the faults more safely?
mini quakes along active fault lines release pent-up energy that protects against "the big one" -- but a dormant fault is like a healed over fracture in your bone -- if nothing disturbs it, it will continue to heal over. Now that it is active again, this will cause a chain reaction of stresses that will likely have continental and possibly global consequences, as it changes the way the other faults interact with each other.
Basically, it made all the related fracture lines that much less predictable.
Why shouldn't apps with bugs in them break in a new OS?
They should -- but since when did the app control mouse placement? That's an OS function, and Apple has obviously changed something about how pointer positioning is sent back to the application stack in Yosemite. As I haven't seen any dev notes on this, it's Apple's bug, until they fix it or document how one of the most popular DTP apps out there is broken. After all, Apple knows what they changed; they should be able to point that out. Adobe neither knows nor cares what Apple changed (they're more than happy to use it to force upgrades to Creative Cloud).
The creators of Google knew they were designing something to make its own decisions (about what to copy) without programming any real concept of legality in the process, and setting it to operate in an environment which is known to have served to facilitate criminal activity.
Yeah; I don't tend to go for iBooks or MacBooks, but the one I'm referring to was a 2010 MacBook. Not mine, and the owner isn't likely to be able to navigate OWC, get the RAM and install it themselves. Looks like OWC has 8GB for just under $100, which is reasonable. I may even suggest the upgrade if they run into further issues that "upgrading" from Safari to Chrome didn't fix.
A: someone could go the blob route, but this conflicts with the "spirit" of OSS.
B: This assumes someone working on Linux/Debian/Ubuntu/Mint is both interested in Mac hardware and has a logic analyzer and knows how to use it.
C: This partially goes back to A, but should be doable, assuming you've got two Macs. This is the method I assume someone will eventually do.
But this brings us to the standard method...
D: Someone looks up the part number and goes to the manufacturer for the specs, and then writes a driver against them.
Apple uses a few different hardware designs, but it seems to me that their actual fabricator probably makes some knockoff variants using some of the same chipsets. Also, Apple makes Windows drivers as well as OS X drivers for the iSight, so this means it's even easier to test what's what.
But I'm not going to be the one to do it; I've poked at the iSight once as mine stopped working for a short time, and that once was enough to show me that it's not a standard set of USB drivers (yes, there are multiple drivers that drive multiple parts of the iSight logic and hardware -- remember, that little light isn't hard-wired into the camera function, and the audio is separate, but on OS X linked to how the iSight driver handles the video).
That's the point -- you can't install a modern Safari on 10.6. The solution, however, is to install a modern version of Chrome.
Yosemite really requires 4GB RAM, which means people with 4-year-old iBooks with stock memory have to find somewhere that still carries their RAM in a 4GB configuration and upgrade that in order to upgrade to Yosemite -- which still won't perform all that well on their hardware.
The question remains: how come Apple doesn't have an easy upgrade path for users of 4-year-old hardware? The limitations are all in software, and could all be removed by tightening up the software and removing the forced obsolescence code.
Marco Arment "respected developer" provides literally not a SINGLE example about this software "nosedive". This is blog by assertion. This blogger is somewhat famous for his strong assertions that get a lot of traffic.
And he doesn't measure this supposed nosedive IN CONTEXT. In other words, Apple is in trouble if Microsoft or Linux software was taking off free of bugs and integration glitches. Having to use Windows at work (and just listen to corporate IT dealing with Windows 8 "upgrades" before saying microsoft is taking off and Apple is nosediving), Mac and home and develop for linux this is FAR from true. Window 8 has had no GUI stability, the Windows bluetooth stack is glitchy beyond belief, the supposed development model for windows apps (for those familiar with the metro stuff) is super confusing. Trying to develop desktop apps for linux is a joke unless you go cross-platform.
Apple offers a relatively cogent, clear development model. The App store and app sales model is relatively straightforward. The installed base is not ludicrously fragmented the way linux is. And yes, parents AND grandparents seem to run into fewer problems using apple products than linux and other solutions (anyone trying to go down the linux path with parents / grandparents will learn some important lessons quickly).
Perhaps some other posters can give us some useful details of this nosedive.
I'm not sure why the blogger didn't provide any examples; it's possibly because they are so glaringly obvious to most people using OS X or iOS these days. The biggest quality issues surround integration of software with iCloud, causing the "cloud" listings to overwrite local listings, even if the local ones were updated more recently. The list also includes user interface glitches, hardware driver issues, functionality failures (not being able to use your iPhone 6 to, er, phone after the iOS 8.0.1 update), and more. We're only talking about Apple-only software here; these are issues you'd encounter if you bought Apple hardware and played around with the bundled Apple-written software. In the past, such configurations always "just worked," but now things have got so complex with so many dependencies that every update (whether forced or not) is entered with a certain level of trepidation, as you may not even realize that something had stopped functioning correctly until a few weeks after it had affected your own data (and the recovery via backup may not be for the faint of heart, as this could involve data in a hidden data cache being overwritten and losing your userdata, with the iCloud version being not even remotely the same as the local version).
The other issue of course is that with iCloud, there could be all sorts of updates going on that affect your data in the cloud, and you have no control over them, as your data is in the hands of Apple (actually, Microsoft, but Apple holds the keys).
Hopefully as they unify their software design, these issues will shrink to the odd issue again; but it seems to me like they're banking on volume over quantity these days, which doesn't do well to entrench a userbase.
The last time this happened was under Gil Amelio's watch, with the Apple hardware licensing, Newton MessagePad, eWorld dialup network access, etc. And we all know how that worked out; Apple needed a long-term loan from Microsoft to bail them out until Steve returned and cut all the extra fat, and spin off Claris, Filemaker, etc.
The current situation seems to be similar; it seems to me like it is once again time to trim things down and spin off a few companies. I also sure hope they've got someone looking at what's going to happen for a "next-gen" OS -- because xnu is getting a bit long in the tooth at this point (and we don't have Steve to return to the fold this time).
Other than your username, this is almost verbatim what I was going to say. iTunes "integration" and "where did my files actually go?" are the top gripes, but there's plenty more along that line, including such beauties as drag and drop now failing on older versions of Photoshop in Yosemite (really? precision placement is no longer an issue Apple?).
For the first time in twenty years I'm seriously considering moving off Apple hardware, purely because of the current unreliability of the software (which wouldn't be an issue, save for the forced upgrade path -- you can't run a version of Safari on 10.6.x that will actually load content on sites like Youtube).
- person uses drive for illegal activity - person receives DMCA notice - person "catastrophically fails" their drive - person receives subpoena - person notifies court that sole evidence no longer exists due to drive failure.
Hence, your assumptions are flawed (for this case).
The ruling found that it was NOT illegal to destroy evidence before it is called for evidence. It is illegal to intentionally destroy evidence that has been called for by the court. There are also retention laws that cover certain situations. Setting data retention guidelines prior to the suit protects you from getting into this mess (if you can prove that you ALWAYS destroy your data after X days/ x failed writes/ etc. then you're not culpable if you do what you always do just prior to being served).
" they’ve had their most personal conversations—gossip, medical conditions, love lives—exposed."
This boggled my mind. I know that some people use their work email to explain their medical conditions to HR, but wow....
Basic rule of email: It's not private. Basic rule of corporate email: Don't put anything in it you don't want the management team to read.
If you're discussing something about your love life in this day and age, why on earth would you use corporate email to do it??? Use your personal phone, or fire up webmail.
And yeah; personally confidential documents shouldn't be stored on the intranet or in "the cloud" of a business; that's where *business* data is supposed to be stored.
Actually, what they need to do is mandate all substances at a federal level, rather than state level, because any difference in policies between adjoining states will always carry this problem, so there's nothing special about marijuana in this regard... unless, of course, they want to institute state border checks similar to what they already have in place between the US and Canada.
What you're speaking of is not a federated republic; the United *States* would have to change its name, as making substance intake a federal issue removes significant power of statehood.
Of course, the DEA and Congress are already at the state level, which means they're already mandating all substances at a federal level -- they just (wisely) aren't enforcing these mandates when individual states choose to ignore them.
Slashdot Mirror
And while the related article suggests higher costs for internet access, the real truth is that the costs will be less, but the direct cost to end-users will likely be slightly higher until competition kicks in. This is almost entirely due to all the hidden costs not being legal and/or feasible under Title II, so you'll see everything up-front. At that point, providers will have to compete based on QoS, support, tech investment, and actual sticker price. Much of the other payola etc. won't be worth the cost.
Waitaminute -- either it's a replica of THE Tardis, in which case it looks like an old UK police call box (and they could install a working phone and call it a security shelter), or it's a replica of a generic TARDIS, in which case they could just reconfigure it to look like a rosebush and everyone would be happy.
What about the small startup that wants to deploy a low latency service but can't afford to install a caching server on every street corner like the big corporations do? A paid prioritization scheme would be a good, low cost workaround for these little guys that want to deliver the same snappiness as the big players. Or what about real-time services like VoIP, medical appliances, games, etc that would benefit from prioritization?
The small startup that wants to deploy a low latency service needs to sign agreements with those who they want to provide that service to. Paid prioritization won't give them anything they don't already have, and would likely price them out of the market completely. Real-time services like VoIP aren't affected, as this is a different issue (as has been explained repeatedly, ad nauseum). Medical appliances? If they're depending on ping time or bandwidth for life-critical functions, that's a design flaw. Games? This goes back to your first scenario: games can already use Akamai/Azure/etc. which have local caching. If you discover you've suddenly become really big and those networks can't build out your support anymore... well, then you're no longer a little player and should be able to afford to install your own caching servers (which the last mile ISPs should be more than happy to install).
I'm not sure if you're intentionally conflating the issues, or just unclear what's going on at the technical level. Hopefully it's the second.
Instead of letting these business models work itself out, we want to quash any new innovation while totally ignoring the real problem - zero ISP competition.
You might want to quash any new innovation, but the rest of us want to limit abuse by entrenched players -- abuse which already exists and is well documented, which happens whenever they're not legislated to prevent it. This entrenchment is also used to limit ISP competition, as you can't start up a new ISP without navigating the loops and hurdles erected by the current players. Title II would actually level this playing field, and make things slightly easier for new ISPs, while limiting abuses by the entrenched players. This is because Title II doesn't actually place too many requirements on the service providers until they start building out expensive and complex solutions -- at which point navigating the rules becomes more expensive and complex, which richer and more complex companies should be able to manage with minimal difficulty. It's mostly about transparency and accountability -- the more you do that could hide abusive practices, the more closely you have to report your actions. You can see why the entrenched players don't like this option.
You know, it should raise some eye brows that the biggest proponents of NN are these tech giants like Google and Netflix. They want to regulate the ISPs to keep their own delivery costs down and protect their own bottom line - in the end they don't give any more of a shit about your 'Internet freedom' than the likes of Comcast and Verizon.
Why? Google and Netflix (and Blizzard and TekSavvy) want to regulate the ISPs to prevent double dipping and abuse of a shared resource. Of course they want to keep their own delivery costs down and protect their own bottom lines -- but that's a straw man here. Just as I should not have to pay Google, NetFlix, Comcast and Cox separately to receive one stream of data, neither should any other node on the Internet have to pay to send data over a network that I've already paid to receive. That would be like me paying a toll on a road to get to work, and then the road owners turning around and billing my employer to let me get to work as well -- and then turning around and also billing the separate entity(s) that own the on and offramps to that road. Once I've paid to use that road, other people who want to do business with me shouldn't have to pay for me to use that road as well.
See: the
But all can't buy edge/cache servers placed directly on a vast amount of ISP premises, which is in fact buying a faster pipe to the consumer (done today by CDNs and services that are big enough to in fact be their own CDN), should that be forbidden then? That would have significant negative impact on many services we take for granted today.
There's nothing wrong with buying a faster pipe to the consumer -- the problem is in buying priority on the existing pipe.
Think of it this way: net neutrality is about having a single set of speed laws that apply to everyone, no matter how much money they pay for insurance/tolls/etc.
On-Prem caching is more like moving some of your company's employees to the county where they work, so that they don't have to travel as many of the roads. Sure, not all companies can do this, but doing it eases the congestion for everyone, which is a good thing.
Such revisionist history.
All history is revisionist. Anyone claiming otherwise is trying to sell you something.
It's too bad in a way; I was expecting S T R E I S A N D but got Delautered instead.
Sports and News are usually available for a short period of time on the broadcaster's own website for streaming. Same is true for many current show episodes and other new content. Usually you have to prove you're subscribed to the content to view it after the first week.
I agree... the inclusion of the SpellCaster games, for instance, is somewhat odd -- as is leaving out some of the classics that shaped how future game design went, and shaped many common catch phrases in use today.
For those who have recovered from clicking your link, there's an actual short best-of:
https://archive.org/details/so...
Oak Island is actually very interesting. The more you read into the history and find all the weird stuff going on, the more it seems like there ha,b.D,/b> to be SOMETHING down there. The intricacies of what has been found to date preclude it being some sort of prank.
FTFY.
I'm sure all sorts of things happened at Oak Island -- but the truth is, that most people who find a place designed to protect "hidden treasure" will follow all the clues only to find that someone else, hundreds (or thousands) of years ago beat them to it. In the case of pirate treasure, it's likely to be someone who was connected with the whole thing in the first place, and any gold from there is now sitting in Ft. Knox.
While there are still interesting things to be found in the world, most have already been discovered by someone at least once before. Most people in the past had good reason not to let anyone else know what they found. Nowadays, there's even more reason, unless you go for full disclosure and TV rights. But most stuff isn't found by years of painstaking research, it's found by accident.
Discovery channel was a lot better (as far as I remember it several years ago): one third about nazi/WW2, on third about dinosaurs, and the last third about sharks.
And Mythbusters... where they had liberal doses of WW2 and sharks (don't remember a dinosaur episode).
Don't the mini quakes release energy from the faults more safely?
mini quakes along active fault lines release pent-up energy that protects against "the big one" -- but a dormant fault is like a healed over fracture in your bone -- if nothing disturbs it, it will continue to heal over. Now that it is active again, this will cause a chain reaction of stresses that will likely have continental and possibly global consequences, as it changes the way the other faults interact with each other.
Basically, it made all the related fracture lines that much less predictable.
I told the Precambrian family not to install a basement. But did they listen? Noooooo.
Well then... this is obviously their fault.
Why should old apps break in the new OS?
Why shouldn't apps with bugs in them break in a new OS?
They should -- but since when did the app control mouse placement? That's an OS function, and Apple has obviously changed something about how pointer positioning is sent back to the application stack in Yosemite. As I haven't seen any dev notes on this, it's Apple's bug, until they fix it or document how one of the most popular DTP apps out there is broken. After all, Apple knows what they changed; they should be able to point that out. Adobe neither knows nor cares what Apple changed (they're more than happy to use it to force upgrades to Creative Cloud).
The creators of Google knew they were designing something to make its own decisions (about what to copy) without programming any real concept of legality in the process, and setting it to operate in an environment which is known to have served to facilitate criminal activity.
Does that set the perspective any better?
Yeah; I don't tend to go for iBooks or MacBooks, but the one I'm referring to was a 2010 MacBook. Not mine, and the owner isn't likely to be able to navigate OWC, get the RAM and install it themselves. Looks like OWC has 8GB for just under $100, which is reasonable. I may even suggest the upgrade if they run into further issues that "upgrading" from Safari to Chrome didn't fix.
It's actually somewhat easier and harder.
A: someone could go the blob route, but this conflicts with the "spirit" of OSS.
B: This assumes someone working on Linux/Debian/Ubuntu/Mint is both interested in Mac hardware and has a logic analyzer and knows how to use it.
C: This partially goes back to A, but should be doable, assuming you've got two Macs. This is the method I assume someone will eventually do.
But this brings us to the standard method...
D: Someone looks up the part number and goes to the manufacturer for the specs, and then writes a driver against them.
Apple uses a few different hardware designs, but it seems to me that their actual fabricator probably makes some knockoff variants using some of the same chipsets. Also, Apple makes Windows drivers as well as OS X drivers for the iSight, so this means it's even easier to test what's what.
But I'm not going to be the one to do it; I've poked at the iSight once as mine stopped working for a short time, and that once was enough to show me that it's not a standard set of USB drivers (yes, there are multiple drivers that drive multiple parts of the iSight logic and hardware -- remember, that little light isn't hard-wired into the camera function, and the audio is separate, but on OS X linked to how the iSight driver handles the video).
That's the point -- you can't install a modern Safari on 10.6. The solution, however, is to install a modern version of Chrome.
Yosemite really requires 4GB RAM, which means people with 4-year-old iBooks with stock memory have to find somewhere that still carries their RAM in a 4GB configuration and upgrade that in order to upgrade to Yosemite -- which still won't perform all that well on their hardware.
The question remains: how come Apple doesn't have an easy upgrade path for users of 4-year-old hardware? The limitations are all in software, and could all be removed by tightening up the software and removing the forced obsolescence code.
Marco Arment "respected developer" provides literally not a SINGLE example about this software "nosedive". This is blog by assertion. This blogger is somewhat famous for his strong assertions that get a lot of traffic.
And he doesn't measure this supposed nosedive IN CONTEXT. In other words, Apple is in trouble if Microsoft or Linux software was taking off free of bugs and integration glitches. Having to use Windows at work (and just listen to corporate IT dealing with Windows 8 "upgrades" before saying microsoft is taking off and Apple is nosediving), Mac and home and develop for linux this is FAR from true. Window 8 has had no GUI stability, the Windows bluetooth stack is glitchy beyond belief, the supposed development model for windows apps (for those familiar with the metro stuff) is super confusing. Trying to develop desktop apps for linux is a joke unless you go cross-platform.
Apple offers a relatively cogent, clear development model. The App store and app sales model is relatively straightforward. The installed base is not ludicrously fragmented the way linux is. And yes, parents AND grandparents seem to run into fewer problems using apple products than linux and other solutions (anyone trying to go down the linux path with parents / grandparents will learn some important lessons quickly).
Perhaps some other posters can give us some useful details of this nosedive.
I'm not sure why the blogger didn't provide any examples; it's possibly because they are so glaringly obvious to most people using OS X or iOS these days. The biggest quality issues surround integration of software with iCloud, causing the "cloud" listings to overwrite local listings, even if the local ones were updated more recently. The list also includes user interface glitches, hardware driver issues, functionality failures (not being able to use your iPhone 6 to, er, phone after the iOS 8.0.1 update), and more. We're only talking about Apple-only software here; these are issues you'd encounter if you bought Apple hardware and played around with the bundled Apple-written software. In the past, such configurations always "just worked," but now things have got so complex with so many dependencies that every update (whether forced or not) is entered with a certain level of trepidation, as you may not even realize that something had stopped functioning correctly until a few weeks after it had affected your own data (and the recovery via backup may not be for the faint of heart, as this could involve data in a hidden data cache being overwritten and losing your userdata, with the iCloud version being not even remotely the same as the local version).
The other issue of course is that with iCloud, there could be all sorts of updates going on that affect your data in the cloud, and you have no control over them, as your data is in the hands of Apple (actually, Microsoft, but Apple holds the keys).
Hopefully as they unify their software design, these issues will shrink to the odd issue again; but it seems to me like they're banking on volume over quantity these days, which doesn't do well to entrench a userbase.
The last time this happened was under Gil Amelio's watch, with the Apple hardware licensing, Newton MessagePad, eWorld dialup network access, etc. And we all know how that worked out; Apple needed a long-term loan from Microsoft to bail them out until Steve returned and cut all the extra fat, and spin off Claris, Filemaker, etc.
The current situation seems to be similar; it seems to me like it is once again time to trim things down and spin off a few companies. I also sure hope they've got someone looking at what's going to happen for a "next-gen" OS -- because xnu is getting a bit long in the tooth at this point (and we don't have Steve to return to the fold this time).
Other than your username, this is almost verbatim what I was going to say. iTunes "integration" and "where did my files actually go?" are the top gripes, but there's plenty more along that line, including such beauties as drag and drop now failing on older versions of Photoshop in Yosemite (really? precision placement is no longer an issue Apple?).
For the first time in twenty years I'm seriously considering moving off Apple hardware, purely because of the current unreliability of the software (which wouldn't be an issue, save for the forced upgrade path -- you can't run a version of Safari on 10.6.x that will actually load content on sites like Youtube).
- person uses drive for illegal activity
- person receives DMCA notice
- person "catastrophically fails" their drive
- person receives subpoena
- person notifies court that sole evidence no longer exists due to drive failure.
Hence, your assumptions are flawed (for this case).
The ruling found that it was NOT illegal to destroy evidence before it is called for evidence. It is illegal to intentionally destroy evidence that has been called for by the court. There are also retention laws that cover certain situations. Setting data retention guidelines prior to the suit protects you from getting into this mess (if you can prove that you ALWAYS destroy your data after X days/ x failed writes/ etc. then you're not culpable if you do what you always do just prior to being served).
" they’ve had their most personal conversations—gossip, medical conditions, love lives—exposed."
This boggled my mind. I know that some people use their work email to explain their medical conditions to HR, but wow....
Basic rule of email: It's not private.
Basic rule of corporate email: Don't put anything in it you don't want the management team to read.
If you're discussing something about your love life in this day and age, why on earth would you use corporate email to do it??? Use your personal phone, or fire up webmail.
And yeah; personally confidential documents shouldn't be stored on the intranet or in "the cloud" of a business; that's where *business* data is supposed to be stored.
I see it does have side effects though.... ;)
Actually, what they need to do is mandate all substances at a federal level, rather than state level, because any difference in policies between adjoining states will always carry this problem, so there's nothing special about marijuana in this regard... unless, of course, they want to institute state border checks similar to what they already have in place between the US and Canada.
What you're speaking of is not a federated republic; the United *States* would have to change its name, as making substance intake a federal issue removes significant power of statehood.
Of course, the DEA and Congress are already at the state level, which means they're already mandating all substances at a federal level -- they just (wisely) aren't enforcing these mandates when individual states choose to ignore them.