In california they must pay you for your earned vacation regardless of why you exit. It would be like not paying you for the last two weeks of work. You already did the work and earned it.
The warrant gives the government the right to search for an item or to seize an item. It doesn't not compel the defendant to tell the police where the item is. If the government doesn't have the key it may get a warrant authorizing it to enter the place or object without a key. Like the location of a key the defendant shouldn't be compelled to give away information of which he is the sole possessor that would be compulsory self incrimination.
The cops already have the phone and all the evidence on the phone. The fact that they are unable to interpret it is not the defendants problem and the defendant should not be compelled to provide the information that is only in his or her head that will be used to convict them
If the problem is that there is more content then bandwidth then charge for bandwidth. But don't throttle my traffic to favor your traffic simply because you don't like the contents of my traffic. If we're paying the same then I expect to be treated the same and that include prioritization. Now if *I* deprioritize my bulk traffic at my point of egress in regard to my voip traffic feel free to honor that.
I'm billed a flat rate and capped on data. My traffic is important to me. Why should I subsidize your traffic by paying the same amount and getting worse service simply because your traffic is VoIP and mine is Downloads? If you want to pay to prioritize your data over mine I can understand that we might be treated differently. I also understand very well the need for prioritization of time sensitive packets like VoIP and streaming video. However, I still don't understand why I should pay the same and get treated differently. My bytes are as valuable to me as yours are to you and I want them delivered as quickly and reliably as yours.
Apple doesn't have to jack up their prices to pay for this. They can use some of the profit that they illegally made due to their product being priced artificially low in the market because they didn't pay the taxes they were suppose to at the time. Taking a financial windfall you weren't entitled to isn't a financial hit it's simply a correction. I'm not a fan of taxes either but we should all be playing by the same rules. If any other corporation couldn't have gotten this same deal the neither should Apple.
I agree with most of your analysis but the problem is that Ireland gave illegal state aid to Apple. Apple isn't being punished it's being told to pay the taxes it always had to pay. If Apple doesn't have to pay then you are in essence legitimizing their preferential deal for avoidance of tax. To fine Ireland and not make Apple pay would have the effect of perpetuating that aid which is completely antithetical to what they are trying to do which is prevent illegal state aid. After all Apple would get the tax break which is what's unfair, Apple gets it but other companies don't. Ireland doesn't get punished here in the sense that it has to pay a fine, but it's lost the major attraction it had to US corporations and anyone looking at these things in the future is gonna look twice when dealing with Ireland. That's punishment enough for them.
I linked to it, I didn't serve it. None of the bits come from my server. I told *you* (in the form of your browser) where to get it. How have I violated copyright. If I told you that you could get a book at the library without the permission of the publisher why should that be illegal? The responsibility should be on the one who holds the content and transfers it. Not the person who tells you where it is.
I had cable TV + internet from Comcast. I only bought the cable TV because you had to in order to get the cheaper rate on internet. They charged me a monthly fee for a cable box and when I tried to actually watch something using it instead of streaming via the internet it was a horrible mess. It would reboot (a 5 minute process) or try to redownload the guide (a 20 minute process) and on the odd occasion it actually worked it was such a clunky painful ad filled experience that I never watched cable for the first 2 years I had service. Then TiVo had a sale where I could buy a reconditioned TiVO and lifetime service so I got a cable card and that experience has been unbelievably smooth. I mean literally: I couldn't believe it. I pay less now (the cable card is cheaper than the box) and watch a great deal more cable (which given I watched exactly zero before is a huge increase.) The experience now, even with commercials is way better. Being able to prune out all the channels on the guide that I didn't get in my package and prune out all the non HD versions of channels so I didn't see the same channel twice, once in HD and once in SD made the experience much much better. I don't understand why the Comcast cable box sucks so much. I'd actually spend money on the current setup. I'd cancel service if I could only use the Comcast provided cable box. I'm in favor of the proposal but what I really don't get is why the cable companies have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this. I literally want to put a fork in my eye when I got to my parents house and I'm forced to watchtheir cable. For lack of anything better to do when they go to bed.
Perhaps, but to use an example may of us here may remember: monitor size. I remember a time when everyone wanted big CRTs (I know ancient technology) and so manufacturers would produce big tubes and measure the tube and then put a plastic bezel around the tube shrinking the part of the tube you could see. Then they would advertise the tube size. There was no uniformity from brand to brand telling you how big the bezel was so the ads were misleading. There was a suit the manufacturers settled and I got a $10 coupon on a future CRT (I never did buy one again) but I noticed that all of the sudden the screen sizes shrunk or the ads had foot notes indicating visible size. I think that's a win even if the manufacturers payed a lot of money to basically no one but the lawyers. I believe that manufacturers are discouraged from doing that kind of thing again (how many times have you seen disc drives measured in GiB instead of GB with a footnote specifically to avoid this litigation?) You may not even be aware of the things
I'm not sure that's completely true. Sure if they all filed individual actions Uber would lose big time in the costs to defend them. However, I don't think you can simply file an action free of charge. I think there must be some minimum filing fee and unlike the court system you probably have to pay costs if you lose. Further you have to be smart enough to prepare your own documents or pay someone like a lawyer to have that done. Class action suits exist specifically for the case where the cost or difficult of filing suit outweighs the value of the return to any one individual of the class. I'm ok with the general concept of binding arbitration clauses but they shouldn't force you arbitrate individually.
OK, I've converted to a cell phone. No landline any more. So when I'm on a long conference call using my headset so people on the other end can hear me, how do I charge my phone for the long call?
My guess is that this is the heart of the issue. Downtown Palo Alto AKA University Ave. is a pretty vibrant place all day and into the night. But if you were to put offices there like you have in the financial district in San Francisco then you'll find the area is dead after 6PM when all the workers leave.
So you mean there is a limit? And if I need to learn that there are limits on bandwidth then perhaps the carriers ought to learn that too and stop advertising something that doesn't exist.
I get it that there are limits in that we all share the bandwidth of some critical component at some point and I think generally we're all OK with that. But when you start to impose constraints above and beyond that then I have a problem with you describing it as unlimited.
You're talking commercial fibers. Over the last 20 years the most attractive cables to hack via submarines would be dedicated military channels which are probably not as sophisticated.
I'm ok being charged on a per bit or gbit basis. I'm ok with baselines but if I'm paying per bit then I want my netflix or torrent bit treated just as importantly as your voip or other service and don't advertise it as UNLIMITED if there are limits.
So, wait. Let me get this straight. People are typing into a form, hit back space, thinking it will delete a character and instead it goes to the previous page and you loose everything you typed into the form? How about cacheing that text in the form the you go back a page instead of reassigning the meaning of backspace in browsers? And while we're at it, how about you fix Chrome so that when I hit tab in a gmail compose window I get a tab instead of jumping to the send button. I've sent a whole bunch of annoying empty emails because of this.
I agree with you, I don't know what they were thinking. Having said that, I think it's sad that they even have to worry about that. The kid that hit them is the one responsible, and the only one. However, I do realize that he probably doesn't have the kind of deep pockets that snapchat does. Again I think this is sad all the way around.
If I left my loaded guns out on the street I might agree with you, but I don't. If you want my guns you have to come onto my property and take them. Why should I be responsible for the outcome of your illegal actions?
The relevant questions isn't where did the FSM come from. The key question is: does the person who claims it's a religion honestly and truly believe it's a religion? Otherwise we're merely saying that something has to be old enough that we've either forgotten it's origins or enough people believe it. In this case the judge is substituting his belief for that of someone else and when it comes to religion that's a slippery slope. The power to judge what is a religion is the power to eliminate religions and I don't think we want that. For instance, were I a judge I remark that they all appear to be satire to me and thus there are no religions. Would scientology not be a religion cause it's not old enough? How about mormonism? Islam? Christianity? Judaism.
Please, judging is not difficult. The idea that you need to be some expert to do it is both dangerous and ridiculous. To the extent that it is true it is a *failure* of judges and the legal system. A (not the, but a) primary goal of any system of laws ought to be the simplicity and understandability of laws by everyone as everyone is, or should be, governed by them and ought to be able to apply them. The idea that we can't all understand the law is absurd and leads to the idea that you then need to be some sort lawyer just to live.
Forget about why it's sending the hard drive serial number. Why is windows (or any os) giving an app my hard drive serial number? What possible use could there be for that without some sort of security/privacy dialog?
This is really a case about the All Writs act and what is constitutionally proper for congress to do in that vein. As you correctly point out the FBI has a legal warrant to the item. But, I might point out it also ALREADY has the iPhone. It's not asking to be allowed to seize or search the iPhone. It can already do that. The problem is that it can't understand the information that's on the iPhone and what it now wants is to compel a third party not involved in original subject of the warrant to spend it's time and resources to help the FBI interpret what it already has. If this were a physical safe would we tell the safe manufacturer that it must create new specialized tools and spend time money and resources to break into it? Or would we tell the FBI that "hey you already have the safe, breaking into it is your problem." The court here isn't being ask to grant a search warrant, it's being asked to force a third party to facilitate a search warrant against it's will. I think it should not.
Slashdot Mirror
In california they must pay you for your earned vacation regardless of why you exit. It would be like not paying you for the last two weeks of work. You already did the work and earned it.
The warrant gives the government the right to search for an item or to seize an item. It doesn't not compel the defendant to tell the police where the item is. If the government doesn't have the key it may get a warrant authorizing it to enter the place or object without a key. Like the location of a key the defendant shouldn't be compelled to give away information of which he is the sole possessor that would be compulsory self incrimination.
The cops already have the phone and all the evidence on the phone. The fact that they are unable to interpret it is not the defendants problem and the defendant should not be compelled to provide the information that is only in his or her head that will be used to convict them
If the problem is that there is more content then bandwidth then charge for bandwidth. But don't throttle my traffic to favor your traffic simply because you don't like the contents of my traffic. If we're paying the same then I expect to be treated the same and that include prioritization. Now if *I* deprioritize my bulk traffic at my point of egress in regard to my voip traffic feel free to honor that.
I'm billed a flat rate and capped on data. My traffic is important to me. Why should I subsidize your traffic by paying the same amount and getting worse service simply because your traffic is VoIP and mine is Downloads? If you want to pay to prioritize your data over mine I can understand that we might be treated differently. I also understand very well the need for prioritization of time sensitive packets like VoIP and streaming video. However, I still don't understand why I should pay the same and get treated differently. My bytes are as valuable to me as yours are to you and I want them delivered as quickly and reliably as yours.
Apple doesn't have to jack up their prices to pay for this. They can use some of the profit that they illegally made due to their product being priced artificially low in the market because they didn't pay the taxes they were suppose to at the time. Taking a financial windfall you weren't entitled to isn't a financial hit it's simply a correction. I'm not a fan of taxes either but we should all be playing by the same rules. If any other corporation couldn't have gotten this same deal the neither should Apple.
I agree with most of your analysis but the problem is that Ireland gave illegal state aid to Apple. Apple isn't being punished it's being told to pay the taxes it always had to pay. If Apple doesn't have to pay then you are in essence legitimizing their preferential deal for avoidance of tax. To fine Ireland and not make Apple pay would have the effect of perpetuating that aid which is completely antithetical to what they are trying to do which is prevent illegal state aid. After all Apple would get the tax break which is what's unfair, Apple gets it but other companies don't. Ireland doesn't get punished here in the sense that it has to pay a fine, but it's lost the major attraction it had to US corporations and anyone looking at these things in the future is gonna look twice when dealing with Ireland. That's punishment enough for them.
I linked to it, I didn't serve it. None of the bits come from my server. I told *you* (in the form of your browser) where to get it. How have I violated copyright. If I told you that you could get a book at the library without the permission of the publisher why should that be illegal? The responsibility should be on the one who holds the content and transfers it. Not the person who tells you where it is.
I had cable TV + internet from Comcast. I only bought the cable TV because you had to in order to get the cheaper rate on internet. They charged me a monthly fee for a cable box and when I tried to actually watch something using it instead of streaming via the internet it was a horrible mess. It would reboot (a 5 minute process) or try to redownload the guide (a 20 minute process) and on the odd occasion it actually worked it was such a clunky painful ad filled experience that I never watched cable for the first 2 years I had service. Then TiVo had a sale where I could buy a reconditioned TiVO and lifetime service so I got a cable card and that experience has been unbelievably smooth. I mean literally: I couldn't believe it. I pay less now (the cable card is cheaper than the box) and watch a great deal more cable (which given I watched exactly zero before is a huge increase.) The experience now, even with commercials is way better. Being able to prune out all the channels on the guide that I didn't get in my package and prune out all the non HD versions of channels so I didn't see the same channel twice, once in HD and once in SD made the experience much much better. I don't understand why the Comcast cable box sucks so much. I'd actually spend money on the current setup. I'd cancel service if I could only use the Comcast provided cable box. I'm in favor of the proposal but what I really don't get is why the cable companies have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this. I literally want to put a fork in my eye when I got to my parents house and I'm forced to watchtheir cable. For lack of anything better to do when they go to bed.
Perhaps, but to use an example may of us here may remember: monitor size. I remember a time when everyone wanted big CRTs (I know ancient technology) and so manufacturers would produce big tubes and measure the tube and then put a plastic bezel around the tube shrinking the part of the tube you could see. Then they would advertise the tube size. There was no uniformity from brand to brand telling you how big the bezel was so the ads were misleading. There was a suit the manufacturers settled and I got a $10 coupon on a future CRT (I never did buy one again) but I noticed that all of the sudden the screen sizes shrunk or the ads had foot notes indicating visible size. I think that's a win even if the manufacturers payed a lot of money to basically no one but the lawyers. I believe that manufacturers are discouraged from doing that kind of thing again (how many times have you seen disc drives measured in GiB instead of GB with a footnote specifically to avoid this litigation?) You may not even be aware of the things
I'm not sure that's completely true. Sure if they all filed individual actions Uber would lose big time in the costs to defend them. However, I don't think you can simply file an action free of charge. I think there must be some minimum filing fee and unlike the court system you probably have to pay costs if you lose. Further you have to be smart enough to prepare your own documents or pay someone like a lawyer to have that done. Class action suits exist specifically for the case where the cost or difficult of filing suit outweighs the value of the return to any one individual of the class. I'm ok with the general concept of binding arbitration clauses but they shouldn't force you arbitrate individually.
OK, I've converted to a cell phone. No landline any more. So when I'm on a long conference call using my headset so people on the other end can hear me, how do I charge my phone for the long call?
My guess is that this is the heart of the issue. Downtown Palo Alto AKA University Ave. is a pretty vibrant place all day and into the night. But if you were to put offices there like you have in the financial district in San Francisco then you'll find the area is dead after 6PM when all the workers leave.
Wish I could like this!
So you mean there is a limit? And if I need to learn that there are limits on bandwidth then perhaps the carriers ought to learn that too and stop advertising something that doesn't exist.
I get it that there are limits in that we all share the bandwidth of some critical component at some point and I think generally we're all OK with that. But when you start to impose constraints above and beyond that then I have a problem with you describing it as unlimited.
You're talking commercial fibers. Over the last 20 years the most attractive cables to hack via submarines would be dedicated military channels which are probably not as sophisticated.
I'm ok being charged on a per bit or gbit basis. I'm ok with baselines but if I'm paying per bit then I want my netflix or torrent bit treated just as importantly as your voip or other service and don't advertise it as UNLIMITED if there are limits.
So, wait. Let me get this straight. People are typing into a form, hit back space, thinking it will delete a character and instead it goes to the previous page and you loose everything you typed into the form? How about cacheing that text in the form the you go back a page instead of reassigning the meaning of backspace in browsers? And while we're at it, how about you fix Chrome so that when I hit tab in a gmail compose window I get a tab instead of jumping to the send button. I've sent a whole bunch of annoying empty emails because of this.
I agree with you, I don't know what they were thinking. Having said that, I think it's sad that they even have to worry about that. The kid that hit them is the one responsible, and the only one. However, I do realize that he probably doesn't have the kind of deep pockets that snapchat does. Again I think this is sad all the way around.
If I left my loaded guns out on the street I might agree with you, but I don't. If you want my guns you have to come onto my property and take them. Why should I be responsible for the outcome of your illegal actions?
The relevant questions isn't where did the FSM come from. The key question is: does the person who claims it's a religion honestly and truly believe it's a religion? Otherwise we're merely saying that something has to be old enough that we've either forgotten it's origins or enough people believe it. In this case the judge is substituting his belief for that of someone else and when it comes to religion that's a slippery slope. The power to judge what is a religion is the power to eliminate religions and I don't think we want that. For instance, were I a judge I remark that they all appear to be satire to me and thus there are no religions. Would scientology not be a religion cause it's not old enough? How about mormonism? Islam? Christianity? Judaism.
Please, judging is not difficult. The idea that you need to be some expert to do it is both dangerous and ridiculous. To the extent that it is true it is a *failure* of judges and the legal system. A (not the, but a) primary goal of any system of laws ought to be the simplicity and understandability of laws by everyone as everyone is, or should be, governed by them and ought to be able to apply them. The idea that we can't all understand the law is absurd and leads to the idea that you then need to be some sort lawyer just to live.
Forget about why it's sending the hard drive serial number. Why is windows (or any os) giving an app my hard drive serial number? What possible use could there be for that without some sort of security/privacy dialog?
This is really a case about the All Writs act and what is constitutionally proper for congress to do in that vein. As you correctly point out the FBI has a legal warrant to the item. But, I might point out it also ALREADY has the iPhone. It's not asking to be allowed to seize or search the iPhone. It can already do that. The problem is that it can't understand the information that's on the iPhone and what it now wants is to compel a third party not involved in original subject of the warrant to spend it's time and resources to help the FBI interpret what it already has. If this were a physical safe would we tell the safe manufacturer that it must create new specialized tools and spend time money and resources to break into it? Or would we tell the FBI that "hey you already have the safe, breaking into it is your problem." The court here isn't being ask to grant a search warrant, it's being asked to force a third party to facilitate a search warrant against it's will. I think it should not.
I don't want to be off by two miles on any ship that has to navigate subsurface obstacles before it can produce a fix using visible land features.