Why deal with complex, difficult scenarios when you can get an end user to give you everything you want willingly?
This article is by definition that, by being submitted by bonch (MS sockpuppet) the same day as this "malware warning" was even discovered. Watch how by tomorrow it's probably forcibly uninstalled/removed from the market/etc.
So both are useful, but both need to be focused upon.
However, when it comes to the US, we gave up on the hardware when we mostly gave up on manufacturing - so I suppose we should be looking at the software.
this is entirely inaccurate. There is no requirement that any form of data go across any port. We've simply decided to start doing that. Nothing says it has to be that way, and actually it's only slightly better for security to actually not use standard ports because that's the standard attack vector and gives you hints if someone has a default config, which means *bad* security.
They've just never had a chance to challenge the issue directly. The courts have sidestepped this as much as possible to narrowly rule on technicalities. The truth is, prior restraint isn't suddenly invalid as a defense because of the DMCA but courts are always very hesitant to fight against laws created by congress. Isn't it great? Even in the supreme court. This is how broken our system of branches of gov't is as it exists.
It becomes: Legislative branch -> judicial branch (Judicial rolls over 99% of the time) Legislative branch = executive branch.
Actually, his point is quite valid. There are situations where congress should have stepped in but didn't (banks), and also situations where congress needs to stay the hell out of it but is eagerly trying to regulate (the internet). Literally, not regulating the internet is a far smarter move than actually doing so.
Same people do both, and it's bipartisan.
Basically, the issue is that money is still funding politics.
Oh, the demand will be answered - just not in the way you're thinking of.
Who's going to answer? The businesses that are going to move out of the US and/or away from it before this comes around, so that they can ignore the demand.
Good job USA. We've once again shown why people shouldn't have any desire to do business with us.
Doesn't really matter considering that they haven't had to work around any of the technology, entirely.
Apple hasn't really held up a single claim successfully in court thus far against others - so they've merely tried to make people "comply" with things they claim to own, even when they don't. So that 100M costs their competitor approximately zero.
In fact, what's the one time they actually supported the competition and themselves? When they defended themselves against psystar. You'd think apple would remember that defending themselves is more useful than going on the litigation spree.
I'm guessing it's the "paid to not understand" part as there has been a new bout of desperation represented by new usernames lately which all cater to the anti-google, pro microsoft, pro facebook concept and somehow think that the average slashdotter (who is a techie) is going to be unaware that they're all funded by the same group. They also first post articles and think people won't notice the sockpuppetry. Comedy, at best.
Honestly dude, troll harder. You're focusing on bullshit again. How many times will you do this with how many accounts? Is this 5? 10? in the last week?
Of course public information is scraped. That's not the point. You could publicly scrape anything whether anyone wants it or not. The reality here is the strawman of focusing on that, yet again. But yes, it must be google, they must be evil. Uh, no.
not just facebook, supposedly myspace which was owned by murdoch, who clearly is not an evil fellow, right?
ahhh, the comedy. It's another "accuse someone else of what you're doing so that they don't focus on you at all". aka the political/microsoft way to do things.
new account, same anti-google? Jesus christ you guys multiply like tribbles.
The reality here is that putting this on google is focusing on a strawman to mislead people to the fact that it is facebook that prevents google from indexing it, not vice versa.
just because businesses in your perspective may have closed, moved, or simply become less popular in $years since your last experience doesn't mean that the US is somehow a: lacking in culture or b: that those cuisines no longer exist. In fact, single lazy google searches of everything you referenced pulls up examples for all of them. I just spent 10 seconds on google and found places. Quantity can and will vary, as will quality. This is the nature of any business, let alone restaurants.
Just because of the corporations building shit on every corner with a profit motive doesn't mean local cultural businesses don't exist. Your thinking is just as generally inaccurate as the concept of Canada's "protect our culture" regimes. They are ignorant in the face of a global marketplace, which we have. Just because people are stupid enough to eat at McDonalds doesn't mean local restaurants can't possibly be in business too.
And what I'm stating is exactly what the judges confirm.
Let's hope they confirm this is more scenarios, including things the MPAA/RIAA gave up on in the US, such as subpoena-ing ISP's for user info.
However, if I'm going to follow your general phrasing, let's be more creative: Let's make it that providing your information to third parties should require warrants from the third parties, as it is a search of all of your information.
Well, I'd say we gained a lot in the last 50 years. It's just that it's in the waistline due to horrible food lobbying (not for me though, thankfully), which people are grossly unaware of.
Meanwhile, the US's culture is an amalgam of other cultures. That by definition, is their culture. Want to create $culture in an area? Go do it. Simple.
In all honesty those locations and other highly populated cities have the broadest variance in food versus the rest of the country, so I respectfully disagree on concept. Big cities are the definition of melting pot and where culture diversity tends to be the highest, even statistically. On this, you are backwards.
I sincerely pray that more and more countries rebel against the US - not through violence but outright rejection of our politics, because I don't see the US fixing that matter anytime soon, even when Lawrence Lessig and others points it out directly.
Yes. Same here. Considering the cost of internet service on a tethered device, as long as Verizon isn't a gigantic prick about it I am entirely considering cutting off cable TV and cable internet entirely for a 30ms higher ping with a faster connection than we pay $80 for. Guess it shows who's really competing and who's not.
Verizon has ensured that comcast will go out of business from this too, as they've mutually agreed not to tread on eachother's service - aka verizon wont' offer FIOS where comcast offers cable - but this means that Verizon can simply offer LTE tethering in areas that comcast offers cable to simply bypass their own agreement. Very well played by Verizon aka the major LTE player, actually.
uh, vodaphone basically controls/owns verizon, and how big do you suppose they are in europe?
hint: huge.
So it's a question of market and inevitability of when it will happen, actually. And as noted, Sweden's been ahead of the game for a while, and I'd presume Japan too.
Slashdot Mirror
lowest hanging fruit.
Why deal with complex, difficult scenarios when you can get an end user to give you everything you want willingly?
This article is by definition that, by being submitted by bonch (MS sockpuppet) the same day as this "malware warning" was even discovered. Watch how by tomorrow it's probably forcibly uninstalled/removed from the market/etc.
Wha? Ron Wyden is already seeking answers quite appropriately about the question of "does the president even have authority to call this an executive agreement" - it seems the president has defined it as one himself.
Where are you getting treaties from? It's defined as a trade agreement, and the president is calling it an executive agreement.
You don't have one without the other in some fashion if the topic of reference is essentially computing.
Not true.
Having google searches capable on an apple product enhances the value of the *apple* product.
So both parties benefit, but you don't hear of google suing apple.
hardware enables software *AND* vice versa.
So both are useful, but both need to be focused upon.
However, when it comes to the US, we gave up on the hardware when we mostly gave up on manufacturing - so I suppose we should be looking at the software.
This is the comedy of apple suing google.
They're suing google while using google to make their own money!
Funny, isn't it.
this is entirely inaccurate. There is no requirement that any form of data go across any port. We've simply decided to start doing that. Nothing says it has to be that way, and actually it's only slightly better for security to actually not use standard ports because that's the standard attack vector and gives you hints if someone has a default config, which means *bad* security.
Way to state backwards reality there.
They've just never had a chance to challenge the issue directly. The courts have sidestepped this as much as possible to narrowly rule on technicalities. The truth is, prior restraint isn't suddenly invalid as a defense because of the DMCA but courts are always very hesitant to fight against laws created by congress. Isn't it great? Even in the supreme court. This is how broken our system of branches of gov't is as it exists.
It becomes: Legislative branch -> judicial branch (Judicial rolls over 99% of the time)
Legislative branch = executive branch.
Nice balanced political system huh.
Actually, his point is quite valid. There are situations where congress should have stepped in but didn't (banks), and also situations where congress needs to stay the hell out of it but is eagerly trying to regulate (the internet). Literally, not regulating the internet is a far smarter move than actually doing so.
Same people do both, and it's bipartisan.
Basically, the issue is that money is still funding politics.
Oh, the demand will be answered - just not in the way you're thinking of.
Who's going to answer? The businesses that are going to move out of the US and/or away from it before this comes around, so that they can ignore the demand.
Good job USA. We've once again shown why people shouldn't have any desire to do business with us.
Doesn't really matter considering that they haven't had to work around any of the technology, entirely.
Apple hasn't really held up a single claim successfully in court thus far against others - so they've merely tried to make people "comply" with things they claim to own, even when they don't. So that 100M costs their competitor approximately zero.
In fact, what's the one time they actually supported the competition and themselves? When they defended themselves against psystar. You'd think apple would remember that defending themselves is more useful than going on the litigation spree.
Saying that you're not going to find anything is a hilarious misdirect of the fact that the vulnerability has existed for a long time and still does.
Saying "oh they won't find anything" is still not an answer to "but we left the door wide open".
That's 100M in what, 4 months?
the legal costs will escalate for apple far faster than the competition. That's the nature of shakedown attempts.
and 99% of statistics are made up of 100% imagination or are 100% inaccurate.
nice try though.
I welcome any competition that can beat google - google does themselves.
However, anyone but a propaganda based search engine, please.
I'm guessing it's the "paid to not understand" part as there has been a new bout of desperation represented by new usernames lately which all cater to the anti-google, pro microsoft, pro facebook concept and somehow think that the average slashdotter (who is a techie) is going to be unaware that they're all funded by the same group. They also first post articles and think people won't notice the sockpuppetry. Comedy, at best.
Guilty as charged! (before any trial has occurred, of course)
Honestly dude, troll harder. You're focusing on bullshit again. How many times will you do this with how many accounts? Is this 5? 10? in the last week?
Of course public information is scraped. That's not the point. You could publicly scrape anything whether anyone wants it or not. The reality here is the strawman of focusing on that, yet again. But yes, it must be google, they must be evil. Uh, no.
Oh wait, here's the humor and irony:
to get to http://www.facebook.com/apps/site_scraping_tos.php - you have to log in to facebook.
not just facebook, supposedly myspace which was owned by murdoch, who clearly is not an evil fellow, right?
ahhh, the comedy. It's another "accuse someone else of what you're doing so that they don't focus on you at all". aka the political/microsoft way to do things.
new account, same anti-google? Jesus christ you guys multiply like tribbles.
The reality here is that putting this on google is focusing on a strawman to mislead people to the fact that it is facebook that prevents google from indexing it, not vice versa.
just because businesses in your perspective may have closed, moved, or simply become less popular in $years since your last experience doesn't mean that the US is somehow a: lacking in culture or b: that those cuisines no longer exist. In fact, single lazy google searches of everything you referenced pulls up examples for all of them. I just spent 10 seconds on google and found places. Quantity can and will vary, as will quality. This is the nature of any business, let alone restaurants.
Just because of the corporations building shit on every corner with a profit motive doesn't mean local cultural businesses don't exist. Your thinking is just as generally inaccurate as the concept of Canada's "protect our culture" regimes. They are ignorant in the face of a global marketplace, which we have. Just because people are stupid enough to eat at McDonalds doesn't mean local restaurants can't possibly be in business too.
And what I'm stating is exactly what the judges confirm.
Let's hope they confirm this is more scenarios, including things the MPAA/RIAA gave up on in the US, such as subpoena-ing ISP's for user info.
However, if I'm going to follow your general phrasing, let's be more creative: Let's make it that providing your information to third parties should require warrants from the third parties, as it is a search of all of your information.
Well, I'd say we gained a lot in the last 50 years. It's just that it's in the waistline due to horrible food lobbying (not for me though, thankfully), which people are grossly unaware of.
Meanwhile, the US's culture is an amalgam of other cultures. That by definition, is their culture. Want to create $culture in an area? Go do it. Simple.
In all honesty those locations and other highly populated cities have the broadest variance in food versus the rest of the country, so I respectfully disagree on concept. Big cities are the definition of melting pot and where culture diversity tends to be the highest, even statistically. On this, you are backwards.
I sincerely pray that more and more countries rebel against the US - not through violence but outright rejection of our politics, because I don't see the US fixing that matter anytime soon, even when Lawrence Lessig and others points it out directly.
Yes. Same here. Considering the cost of internet service on a tethered device, as long as Verizon isn't a gigantic prick about it I am entirely considering cutting off cable TV and cable internet entirely for a 30ms higher ping with a faster connection than we pay $80 for. Guess it shows who's really competing and who's not.
Verizon has ensured that comcast will go out of business from this too, as they've mutually agreed not to tread on eachother's service - aka verizon wont' offer FIOS where comcast offers cable - but this means that Verizon can simply offer LTE tethering in areas that comcast offers cable to simply bypass their own agreement. Very well played by Verizon aka the major LTE player, actually.
uh, vodaphone basically controls/owns verizon, and how big do you suppose they are in europe?
hint: huge.
So it's a question of market and inevitability of when it will happen, actually. And as noted, Sweden's been ahead of the game for a while, and I'd presume Japan too.