4Chan did an obviously bad thing in comparison to someone doing a very bad thing in an insidious fashion. I'd compare it to solving the problem of urban decay through nuking the whole place... You have to do it from orbit, just to be sure.
That is actually how I read the headline the first time. ...How long until all porn is CG? Or at least performance capture ~ digital makeup (Avatar style)?
No matter how many features they pile into gmail, no matter how flashy and pretty they make it, any time I need to actually quickly check my email or read several in new tabs, I am going to use 'basic html view'.
The advanced modes are better for searching/sorting though.
Does anyone remember the android demo at Google IO where they showed the remote install feature from the android market on a desktop browser in froyo? Seriously, just because there is remote install functionality in the OS doesn't mean that it's there for malicious or secret use -- it's most likely part of a user facing feature.
Fortunately most service providers that I've dealt with will allow you to terminate your contract with them at no penalty if they change the terms of service significantly such that you decide that you can no longer use the service. The big issue is that there's usually some limiting date, like say 30 days from the change to exercise that option. Does anyone know if it's a general thing in the information service industry or if it's specific to just the few carriers I've dealt with?
Which is a good demonstration of why this probably won't do much good. These people who give their real IDs to buy cell phones to use for criminal purposes are unlikely to be able to organize anything as complicated as a coordinated attack without giving us some other more obvious and actionable clues. Clues that won't require making ever user of a currently anonymous (at least on the face of it) method of portable communication a suspect subject to a preemptive presumption of guilt.
It seems to me that requiring the presentation of ID before purchasing something for the purpose of associating it with an identity for future use won't work as there's no way that you can guarantee the identity the person presents is genuine. All this law will do is encourage people to present fake identification when purchasing said goods, especially if they're going to use them for nefarious purposes.
Perhaps you could provide arguments to the contrary? Seeing as how you must be more familiar with Apple's practices and motives than I am, do you have any evidence for your position that we're not aware of?
Planned lawsuit or no planned lawsuit did anyone expect "Steve" (probably someone he pays to respond to his e-mail) to respond differently? Even if they aren't planning on a lawsuit there's nothing like the threat of one to make us geeks go "OMG". This is nothing more than the typical Apple/Microsoft/SCO/InsertBiasedCompanyHere FUD.
Slashdot Mirror
Residuuuuuuaaaaaaaaalllllllllllzzzzzzz!
4Chan did an obviously bad thing in comparison to someone doing a very bad thing in an insidious fashion. I'd compare it to solving the problem of urban decay through nuking the whole place... You have to do it from orbit, just to be sure.
That is actually how I read the headline the first time.
...How long until all porn is CG? Or at least performance capture ~ digital makeup (Avatar style)?
[insert stupid flash pun]
No matter how many features they pile into gmail, no matter how flashy and pretty they make it, any time I need to actually quickly check my email or read several in new tabs, I am going to use 'basic html view'. The advanced modes are better for searching/sorting though.
Pandering to the Apple fanboys like everyone else seems to be? Oh come on Aaron, would you jump off a cliff just because everyone else ... oh.
Does anyone remember the android demo at Google IO where they showed the remote install feature from the android market on a desktop browser in froyo? Seriously, just because there is remote install functionality in the OS doesn't mean that it's there for malicious or secret use -- it's most likely part of a user facing feature.
Sounds like the principal and superintendent bought Apple stock.
Ah, I stand corrected. Thanks for letting me know, now I can share this.
Wrong is still wrong, even if it's cultured wrong.
You might want to note that the footnote at the end of the letter indicates that it isn't actually an open letter. :)
Nice try, but I see what you did there.
Yes, but will it block porn? I wouldn't want my Apple(TM) experience ruined.
-- Begin program section
Sarcasm++
Somehow, I imagine there's a very good reason for not letting technicians keep pieces of potentially diseased human tissue...
Mod parent up, for all the transparency Apple gives developers that might as well be the process.
Until everyone realizes that your thanks are overinflated penny stocks and then your valuation heads into the toilet.
Fortunately most service providers that I've dealt with will allow you to terminate your contract with them at no penalty if they change the terms of service significantly such that you decide that you can no longer use the service. The big issue is that there's usually some limiting date, like say 30 days from the change to exercise that option. Does anyone know if it's a general thing in the information service industry or if it's specific to just the few carriers I've dealt with?
Which is a good demonstration of why this probably won't do much good. These people who give their real IDs to buy cell phones to use for criminal purposes are unlikely to be able to organize anything as complicated as a coordinated attack without giving us some other more obvious and actionable clues. Clues that won't require making ever user of a currently anonymous (at least on the face of it) method of portable communication a suspect subject to a preemptive presumption of guilt.
It seems to me that requiring the presentation of ID before purchasing something for the purpose of associating it with an identity for future use won't work as there's no way that you can guarantee the identity the person presents is genuine. All this law will do is encourage people to present fake identification when purchasing said goods, especially if they're going to use them for nefarious purposes.
Also, you have to pay extra for it, so it must be insanely great, right?
I doubt it. They're too busy producing things that "just work just about all the time" instead of "barely work but they meet the spec".
Perhaps you could provide arguments to the contrary? Seeing as how you must be more familiar with Apple's practices and motives than I am, do you have any evidence for your position that we're not aware of?
I (heart) science. I think that's all that needs to be said.
Planned lawsuit or no planned lawsuit did anyone expect "Steve" (probably someone he pays to respond to his e-mail) to respond differently? Even if they aren't planning on a lawsuit there's nothing like the threat of one to make us geeks go "OMG". This is nothing more than the typical Apple/Microsoft/SCO/InsertBiasedCompanyHere FUD.
Skin tissue that would've been incinerated anyway? At least they don't require the whole thing.