My roommate moved out without leaving contact info, so I called the phone company to try to get the phone put in my name instead of his. The phone company informed me they couldn't switch it over unless he gave permission, which he could do be phone. So I said "So what you're telling me is the only way I can get the bill put in my name is to call you back claiming to be my roommate and authorize the transfer?" To which the phone company rep replied, "That's correct, sir."
I suspect the husband in this case did something similar -- called up with his wife's phone and authorized the change of service.
You're missing the point... if any app can update your privacy setting, it is trivially easy for a trojan such as a game to update your settings as well.
A dead-man's switch on a phone that is frequently out of contact with cell towers? Sure, that's gonna work... especially when you forget to disable it while on an airplane. Here's a better idea: don't keep incriminating evidence on your smart phone!!!
What if the pickpocket simply stashes the iPhone under his tinfoil hat?
iPhones don't have removable batteries, and if the phone is locked, you can't put it in "airplane mode". Can you still power it off when locked? The options of removing the SIM card or better yet immediately placing the device in a shielded container still appear viable.
If you start a Cougar breeding program and start soliciting for sperm donations, I suspect you are going to have a hard time being taken seriously! Damn what they've done to our language! I can't even say I had "gay old time" anymore without people looking at me funny!
Not using birth control ALSO comes with some very nasty side effects; they're called "children", and they have an extremely detrimental effect on your love life!
Isn't there also a risk of false positives when labeling people as "dangerous" to justify indefinite incarceration? I agree that we shouldn't execute people because one mistake is too many, but we really don't have much of a system for exonerating people once they are convicted either. We are only really certain that someone is guilty if they confess, but using that as a criteria risks punishing the most honest offenders more harshly than the sneaky bastards.
We're all perverts, it's just that most of us don't commit unlawful or harmful acts. Remember, any sexual act not performed for the sole purpose of procreation is a perversion, meaning that anybody who uses birth control is a pervert!
As a general principle, one should look for the least intrusive method of preventing further crimes. For drunk drivers and moving violators, take away their cars. For domestic abusers, take away their partners. For murders, take away their weapons. And of course, for rapists, take away their naughty bits -- we probably don't want these people reproducing anyway!
The determining factor should only be their likelihood of re-offending. In principle, I am very much in favor of keeping anybody who is very likely to victimize others behind bars indefinitely. In practice, I'm not really sure we can accurately determine who meets this criteria and who does not. There are lots and lots of murders and rapes that could have been prevented if "the authorities" had only kept the perpetrator behind bars once they had him. Unfortunately, it is much easier to judge in hindsight who is dangerous and who isn't.
If it is possible that a "true child rapist" can be completely rehabilitated, so that he/she is can no longer be considered a thread to society, why should they still be kept in jail past the end of their punishment? Some of these guys even serve a useful purpose to society, lecturing people on how to avoid sexual predators.
Look at the Lawrence Taylor case... he paid for sex with a young woman, may or may not have known she was underage, and now he is labeled a "rapist" and a "sex offender". Bad judgment and criminal activity, sure... but was rape really his intent?
My high school graduating class was 30 students. 5 of us were in the advanced math class. I was far more advanced than anyone else in the class, but for some reason the school didn't feel like starting a more advanced math class for just me. Go figure...
Slashdot Mirror
My roommate moved out without leaving contact info, so I called the phone company to try to get the phone put in my name instead of his. The phone company informed me they couldn't switch it over unless he gave permission, which he could do be phone. So I said "So what you're telling me is the only way I can get the bill put in my name is to call you back claiming to be my roommate and authorize the transfer?" To which the phone company rep replied, "That's correct, sir."
I suspect the husband in this case did something similar -- called up with his wife's phone and authorized the change of service.
All I know is that if I had a teacher like that, I would have payed a LOT more attention in class!
Why can't they be both? I've had many head on collisions with cows that were grazing...
Actually, Islamic law prescribes cutting off a hand for thieves. They have very few 3rd time offenders.
You're missing the point... if any app can update your privacy setting, it is trivially easy for a trojan such as a game to update your settings as well.
A dead-man's switch on a phone that is frequently out of contact with cell towers? Sure, that's gonna work... especially when you forget to disable it while on an airplane. Here's a better idea: don't keep incriminating evidence on your smart phone!!!
What if the pickpocket simply stashes the iPhone under his tinfoil hat?
iPhones don't have removable batteries, and if the phone is locked, you can't put it in "airplane mode". Can you still power it off when locked? The options of removing the SIM card or better yet immediately placing the device in a shielded container still appear viable.
Plus, it is a great way of eliminating competition!
"official in charge of something makes something worse"... wasn't that the general strategy behind all of G. W. Bush's appointments?
That's the same kind of "moral equivalence" that labels the Gulf oil spill as "Obama's Katrina". It's not the same thing!
If you start a Cougar breeding program and start soliciting for sperm donations, I suspect you are going to have a hard time being taken seriously! Damn what they've done to our language! I can't even say I had "gay old time" anymore without people looking at me funny!
So look around at your friends... if none of them is into cougars, the "guy in every group" is most likely YOU!
Not using birth control ALSO comes with some very nasty side effects; they're called "children", and they have an extremely detrimental effect on your love life!
Right... so if you're going to rape someone, you might as well kill them afterward... fewer witnesses that way.
Isn't there also a risk of false positives when labeling people as "dangerous" to justify indefinite incarceration? I agree that we shouldn't execute people because one mistake is too many, but we really don't have much of a system for exonerating people once they are convicted either. We are only really certain that someone is guilty if they confess, but using that as a criteria risks punishing the most honest offenders more harshly than the sneaky bastards.
We're all perverts, it's just that most of us don't commit unlawful or harmful acts. Remember, any sexual act not performed for the sole purpose of procreation is a perversion, meaning that anybody who uses birth control is a pervert!
As a general principle, one should look for the least intrusive method of preventing further crimes. For drunk drivers and moving violators, take away their cars. For domestic abusers, take away their partners. For murders, take away their weapons. And of course, for rapists, take away their naughty bits -- we probably don't want these people reproducing anyway!
The determining factor should only be their likelihood of re-offending. In principle, I am very much in favor of keeping anybody who is very likely to victimize others behind bars indefinitely. In practice, I'm not really sure we can accurately determine who meets this criteria and who does not. There are lots and lots of murders and rapes that could have been prevented if "the authorities" had only kept the perpetrator behind bars once they had him. Unfortunately, it is much easier to judge in hindsight who is dangerous and who isn't.
If it is possible that a "true child rapist" can be completely rehabilitated, so that he/she is can no longer be considered a thread to society, why should they still be kept in jail past the end of their punishment? Some of these guys even serve a useful purpose to society, lecturing people on how to avoid sexual predators.
Look at the Lawrence Taylor case... he paid for sex with a young woman, may or may not have known she was underage, and now he is labeled a "rapist" and a "sex offender". Bad judgment and criminal activity, sure... but was rape really his intent?
Nowhere near as prevalent as "ogle-tits", which is now the leading cause of software engineers losing their employment.
Man, that sign just BEGS to be defaced with obscenities!
s/massively/passively/
You make a much better argument for my point than I did.
My high school graduating class was 30 students. 5 of us were in the advanced math class. I was far more advanced than anyone else in the class, but for some reason the school didn't feel like starting a more advanced math class for just me. Go figure...
Studebaker Avanti?
Me: "Why are there drawings all over the wall?!?"
Her: "It was an accident! I didn't mean to do it!"