That last thing means that if someone goes on a campaign to smear someone's name deliberately and starts digging up any information that can be found and recklessly publishing it without checking it out, it could be considered libelous, even if true.
Reckless disregard would mean you don't care if they statements are facts or not. And that by putting false information in with facts, you want to mislead the reader/listener. If all items were fact, then a compilation of all items would still be truth and is an absolute defense (in the US). As soon as you make (knowingly) false statements that a reasonable person would believe, only then can the defamed begin to have a case (in the US).
The important part is "a reasonable person would believe them true".
The US has the strongest free speech laws in the land when it comes to defamation. (Because in order to protect the right to dissent, you must protect the right to criticize).
"Public Interest" . . . I once sat on a jury on a libel case, in which a financier was suing the Wall Street Journal for having said defamatory things about him. The judge instructed us very clearly that truth is not an absolute defense; that is, even if every single thing in the article was provably true, it would still count as libel if it was (for example) just rehashing old information to defame the financier as he tried to start up a new operation.
What country was this? In the US, truth is most absolutely an absolute defense in defamation cases.
I would suggest everyone get the shingles vaccine, because I got it when I was 40, and it was not a fun ride.
I beat you! I got it when I was 29! Shingles sucks! Get the chickenpox vaccine! (The vaccine is an extremely small amount of live herpes virus designed to spur the immune system--there's effectively not enough of the live virus to create a foothold situation. The shingles vaccine is a much larger dose of the chickenpox virus.)
What does the author of TFA want? Double-encryption of message attachments? The storage of the iPhone is always encrypted. In order to access any files, you must supply the encryption key. He supplied the key and could read the files.
Unless he wants attachments double encrypted or encrypted on iCloud itself?
Amazon, using its monopoly power in ebooks, kept prices artificially low. When Apple entered the market, Amazon lost some of its monopoly power and publishers used this event to increase eBook prices across the board.
Apple's own sales numbers say they sold 74 million iPads in 2014. Not sure how gartner lost 4 million.
Also, Apple's numbers are reported as sales to users, everyone else uses sales to channel (the channel can return unsold stock to the company in the following quarter but can still claim it sold that many)
To be fair, Apple does a hell of a lot to prevent user stupidity from installing Malware. Such as blacklisting known malware nearly immediately (as soon as Apple reverse engineers it, its signature is pushed out to ever mac user via a list that is updated every 24 hours).
The sad thing is and a major security flaw of Apple's is that they create trust with third parties based on code signing. This allows code signed malware to skip the normal malware checks in Mac OS X. (It's super trivial to get multiple code signing certs from Apple and Apple doesn't verify code certs applications for individuals)
I'm pretty sure this is not about sharing code, but about collaborating on needed features via a shared spec. So both compilers implement something a standard way instead of coming up with new features independently.
And RMS' complain isn't about the license, it's about the modular design of clang/LLVM and the fact it can be used piecemeal in other software projects.
Politely, thats crap, ever heard of updates? They, apple/Google/MS all do "updates" that "change"your phone/computer settings without your permission. That activate "features" in your system until you find out about later after some security expert notifies the public about what they did. Even then you have no idea what else has happened, since the companies/the phone/computer/parts/whatever/ even don't know what has been shipped, or refuse to elaborate on what they did, or they have been ordered by the FISA courts to keep quiet about what was added.....
You make a good point. Where are the Android release notes for each release? Where are the security advisories published when they've fixed a vulnerability?
If the attacker has physical access, the crypto key is still based on a PIN and (hopefully) some fixed number related to the hardware. The PIN is easy to guess in an offline attack, and the hardware info is also easily accessible. Therefore, full disk crypto doesn't help here either.
Apple documents how it figures out the encryption keys... you could look that up instead of saying "hopefully". Furthermore, you can't "guess" it in an offline attack easily. Well, if you have six months or so and a robot arm to do it, then maybe. Every time you enter an incorrect PIN, it takes longer and longer before you can attempt a different pin. Going from 0000 to 0010 will take around half a business day. Then it gets worse!
Google has removed apps that are banned from the Google Play store from people's devices remotely. Apple has not.
Is an unknown fear in the future somehow better for you to digest than that fear being played out in the past and present? (Apple's "may" versus Google's "has and does and will continue to do")
I still have the "Asian Boobs" apps I downloaded off the App Store on my iPhone even though it has long, long since been removed from App Store. (Yes, it's actually called "Asian Boobs")
Slashdot Mirror
This only works if the exploit isn't hidden in some way.
If "Verify Apps" worked as good as some claim, 10% of the Google Play store wouldn't be malware. It'd be a much, much smaller number.
String theory is math, not science.
That last thing means that if someone goes on a campaign to smear someone's name deliberately and starts digging up any information that can be found and recklessly publishing it without checking it out, it could be considered libelous, even if true.
Reckless disregard would mean you don't care if they statements are facts or not. And that by putting false information in with facts, you want to mislead the reader/listener. If all items were fact, then a compilation of all items would still be truth and is an absolute defense (in the US). As soon as you make (knowingly) false statements that a reasonable person would believe, only then can the defamed begin to have a case (in the US).
The important part is "a reasonable person would believe them true".
The US has the strongest free speech laws in the land when it comes to defamation. (Because in order to protect the right to dissent, you must protect the right to criticize).
"Public Interest" . . . I once sat on a jury on a libel case, in which a financier was suing the Wall Street Journal for having said defamatory things about him. The judge instructed us very clearly that truth is not an absolute defense; that is, even if every single thing in the article was provably true, it would still count as libel if it was (for example) just rehashing old information to defame the financier as he tried to start up a new operation.
What country was this? In the US, truth is most absolutely an absolute defense in defamation cases.
Just look at all the people ticketed for not wearing their seat belt every year. You don't think they'd buy a car without one if it were available?
We had those. People died.
I would suggest everyone get the shingles vaccine, because I got it when I was 40, and it was not a fun ride.
I beat you! I got it when I was 29! Shingles sucks! Get the chickenpox vaccine! (The vaccine is an extremely small amount of live herpes virus designed to spur the immune system--there's effectively not enough of the live virus to create a foothold situation. The shingles vaccine is a much larger dose of the chickenpox virus.)
AIDS has a cure. HIV does not (have a workable cure yet, hell, the way to eradicate HIV might be a vaccine, like HPV.)
Why would regulators care at all about this deal? Twitch isn't a public company.
No, RMS does not want alternatives to exist.
I have taken measures to prevent proprietary extended versions of GCC from existing. If they don't exist, people don't fall prey to them.
Citation: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/h...
(It applies to all projects, not just GCC, the thread is about emacs)
If Firefox did not support DRM directly, the content providers would offer a custom (closed source) tool that did..
That's why flash and silverlight continue to exist now (even though MS abandoned Silverlight)
You cannot mount the disk without the encryption key.
What does the author of TFA want? Double-encryption of message attachments? The storage of the iPhone is always encrypted. In order to access any files, you must supply the encryption key. He supplied the key and could read the files.
Unless he wants attachments double encrypted or encrypted on iCloud itself?
Thanks for finding the reference for my comment.
Amazon, using its monopoly power in ebooks, kept prices artificially low. When Apple entered the market, Amazon lost some of its monopoly power and publishers used this event to increase eBook prices across the board.
No idea how they make up sales numbers.
Apple's own sales numbers say they sold 74 million iPads in 2014. Not sure how gartner lost 4 million.
Also, Apple's numbers are reported as sales to users, everyone else uses sales to channel (the channel can return unsold stock to the company in the following quarter but can still claim it sold that many)
Or they could update to iOS 6.1.6 on their iPhone 3GS (previous versions of iOS did not have this bug)
The update is available to all supported devices (From the iPhone 3GS running 6.1.x and up).
Or they should be better worded.
"I want to stop all electronic devices from passively collecting visible light but still desire riders' eyes to passively collect visible light."
To be fair, Apple does a hell of a lot to prevent user stupidity from installing Malware. Such as blacklisting known malware nearly immediately (as soon as Apple reverse engineers it, its signature is pushed out to ever mac user via a list that is updated every 24 hours).
The sad thing is and a major security flaw of Apple's is that they create trust with third parties based on code signing. This allows code signed malware to skip the normal malware checks in Mac OS X. (It's super trivial to get multiple code signing certs from Apple and Apple doesn't verify code certs applications for individuals)
I'm pretty sure this is not about sharing code, but about collaborating on needed features via a shared spec. So both compilers implement something a standard way instead of coming up with new features independently.
And RMS' complain isn't about the license, it's about the modular design of clang/LLVM and the fact it can be used piecemeal in other software projects.
Politely, thats crap, ever heard of updates? They, apple/Google/MS all do "updates" that "change"your phone/computer settings without your permission. That activate "features" in your system until you find out about later after some security expert notifies the public about what they did. Even then you have no idea what else has happened, since the companies/the phone/computer/parts/whatever/ even don't know what has been shipped, or refuse to elaborate on what they did, or they have been ordered by the FISA courts to keep quiet about what was added.....
You make a good point. Where are the Android release notes for each release? Where are the security advisories published when they've fixed a vulnerability?
If the attacker has physical access, the crypto key is still based on a PIN and (hopefully) some fixed number related to the hardware. The PIN is easy to guess in an offline attack, and the hardware info is also easily accessible. Therefore, full disk crypto doesn't help here either.
Apple documents how it figures out the encryption keys... you could look that up instead of saying "hopefully". Furthermore, you can't "guess" it in an offline attack easily. Well, if you have six months or so and a robot arm to do it, then maybe. Every time you enter an incorrect PIN, it takes longer and longer before you can attempt a different pin. Going from 0000 to 0010 will take around half a business day. Then it gets worse!
Google has removed apps that are banned from the Google Play store from people's devices remotely. Apple has not.
Is an unknown fear in the future somehow better for you to digest than that fear being played out in the past and present? (Apple's "may" versus Google's "has and does and will continue to do")
I still have the "Asian Boobs" apps I downloaded off the App Store on my iPhone even though it has long, long since been removed from App Store. (Yes, it's actually called "Asian Boobs")
Did you miss the part where Apple isnt keeping the prices artificially low, but instead is keeping the prices artificially high?
Where was that part?