That's what I was thinking. So would-be pirates get together, buy a couple copies of the book, compare them for differences, and post a version of the book that combines both alterations in a random method thus ruining the tracking.
The "Nirvana fallacy" is the assumption that something needs to be perfect to be usable. If I have an ebook, and you want the same ebook, I can just copy it and give the copy to you. I can send it to you as an email attachment. Nothing could be simpler. 80% of all customers would know how to do this. And that is stopped if I know that by giving you a copy I put the book out of my control, you could be some idiot who puts the stuff on a website and then it's my problem, so I'm not giving you a copy.
Now the effort involved in giving you a copy is so much higher; "buy a couple of books" is nonsense because why would a buy a couple of books to give you a copy, instead of you buying a book? And it takes substantial effort to make that copy, so it's not going to happen.
And finally, _if_ the publisher finds a copy with watermark removed, then I would think the copier has gone straight into criminal territory, so while the risk of getting caught is lower, the possible damage to you is much higher.
I think that map makers have been doing this for a century or more.
I remember a pub guide with 1,200 pub reviews including three fake ones, and a newspaper copied (and slightly rearranged the words) of ten of their reviews and managed to copy one of the fake ones. Good fun.
They are legally compelled to comply and maintain their silence in regard to specifics of the program, but that does not comply them from ethical obligation. If for example Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple refused to provide this cooperation with the Intelligence Community, what do you think the government would do? Shut them down?
Put their CEO into jail?
Next we can discuss what their ethical obligation actually is. Which probably depends on the numbers involved. If there were a million requests per year, then I would assume that there are an awful number of completely innocent people hit by this, and the companies would have an ethical obligation to do what they can to stop it (and it would be close to a situation where citizens should overthrow their government). If say Apple received 100 such requests, then it is much more likely that these requests are justified.
Many, many issues abound here. How secure is the separation between the two networks? What protections do I have in case of someone using my connection maliciously? How will this affect my total bandwidth and speed?
In the UK, it's voluntary, and it's your payment for being able to use free WiFi everywhere. How secure is it? Well, your WiFi is broadcasting anyway, so how secure do you think _that_ is? If someone uses your connection maliciously - can you think of a better alibi? Yes, your WiFi is used, and your Internet bandwidth is used.
Actually it seems that they are being compelled to be a bit less than truthful e.g. must be aggregated with all LE requests, only for a specific 6 month period, only reported in bands of 1000's.
How does that make it not truthful? "We received between 5,000 and 5,999 requests" if the numbers were indeed in that range would be absolutely truthful.
What, if anything, compels Apple and the others to be truthful about these numbers?
The fact that the truth tends to come out eventually. A few employees at Apple _know_ the correct numbers. In a few years time, a few ex-employees at Apple will know the correct numbers. And eventually, some ex-Apple employee who is really unhappy with the company will know the correct numbers and tell them.
look, these are just the normal warrants. like for robberies, drug dealings and such.
these are not the nsa secret mass warrants, since they're not at liberty to tell about those.
My interpretation is this: Apple (and probably Microsoft, Google, etc. ) have got permission not to tell us how many "secret" warrants they received, but how many warrants in total - secret and the "normal" ones. I suppose they won't be allowed to give the number of "normal" warrants anymore. So if they say "about 5,000" that could be 10 normal and 4,990 super secret, or 4,999 normal and 1 super secret warrant, we don't know. If you define "mass warrants" as "more than 10,000" then there were no "secret nsa mass warrants" to Apple.
if your son came up to you and told you he didnt "feel" like a person who was mobile, and wanted to break his own back and or neck and become a quadriplegic, you would support him right? because thats what he "feels" he is right? cutting off your own cock is totally normal, no one thinks its wrong to chop off your cock with a knife at all....
I don't know whether you are just stupid or pretend to be...
There are two gender states that are both considered "normal": Male and female. Usually these states agree with the body of a person, sometimes they don't. Changing the body to make it agree with the perceived gender of the person isn't hurting the body. Being unable to move is not considered "normal". That's the difference.
I apologize and do not set out to offend anyone. But changing the appearance of gender does not equal changing gender in my mind. A man that has his genitals altered and breasts installed and dresses as a woman is still a man in my mind. It is similar to a cross dresser in a way. A man who dresses as a woman will still be jailed with men. A man that has breast implants will be jailed with men as well. I wonder how jails are handling folks who have had penises or vaginas altered as well.
Well, you are just ignorant then. That person that you thought of as a man never was a man, she just had the wrong parts installed, and an operation will fix that as good as we can do it.
Transgendered isn't the same as transvestite. Any man can dress up as a woman and make dubious claims, but a psychologist won't be fooled by it. As such, you've succeeded in trolling Slashdot in your ignorance.
You seem to be very confused here. A transvestite is indeed a man who likes dressing as a woman (or a woman who likes dressing as a man). And every male transvestite will tell you that indeed they are a man. Like with non-transvestite men, the huge majority have no interest in sex with other men. Transsexual is something completely different. Transsexual is a man or woman stuck in the wrong body.
If the body is male (has penis/gonads/musculature), you're male. If the body is female (uterus/ovaries etc), you're female. End of story. What you 'feel' is irrelevant.
Even the Iranian government is less ignorant than you.
No amount of surgery can change the chromosomes a person has, or give functional sex organs from the opposite sex. Such surgery is cosmetic, and involves hormone therapy because your body doesnt produce those hormones. Any guesses as to why that might be?
It's amazing that even a backward country like Iran is more open-minded in this situation. They say (exactly as Germany): The personality of a person has a gender, and the body of a person has a gender. Most time they match, sometimes they don't match. That's a medical problem that needs to be fixed. And since you can't or don't want to change the personality, you change the body. Simple as that.
Check out the Women in Engineering forums on "hostile work environment" specifically with regard to professional conferences -- then come back and explain why gamers' get-togethers are so much better.
There is no hostile environment for women on any professional conference. Obviously, some conferences are not professional.
Here's what an article on theregister says about phone theft:
Most UK muggings, for example, include the theft of a mobile phone, but it's rarely the phone the thieves want. They've read about tracking and hidden camera apps, and few of them have the technical nous to spot such a thing.
The purpose of stealing the handset and then discarding it is to delay pursuers, thus providing more time during which stolen credit cards and other spoils can be turned into cash.
Yeah, right. You really believe the police won't have a kill-switch kill-switch?
If you use two-factor authentication, even Apple won't have a kill-switch kill-switch. Anyway, what the feature does is it first wipes the phone (which takes a tenth of a second because it only needs to wipe the encryption keys which are only ever kept on the phone), _then_ activates this locking feature. If the police has a kill-switch kill-switch, then worst case a happy policeman got a new iPhone without paying.
I'm sure that with everything we've learned recently regarding the Government and phones, there's no way this could -possibly- be abused!
1. You mean "what we were told", not "what we learned". Just like the MSR scare a few years ago, when millions of idiot mothers believed one doctor and couldn't be convinced by anything the government said, and it turned out that doctor had actually been paid to produce the results that he did produce. Why do you believe one man and his claims? (I think Apple's reply was "we have never ever heard of Prism, and nobody gets any data without court issued subpoena).
2. So how could this be abused? The feature is that nobody can re-activate your phone without knowing your Apple Id and password. If your phone is stolen, this feature cannot be abused - worst case it can be prevented from working, so you are not off any worse. If your phone is not stolen, worst case someone could manage to remotely wipe your phone, in which case you have the Apple Id and password to re-activate it.
by the way if it has a manufacturing defect apple is on hook for fixing it FOREVER! not just 6 months. not just 12 months. forever, because the defect was in the product when they sold it.
On the other hand, if it lasts long enough then it is by definition not defective. (And, by law, six years after the purchase, five years in Scotland, the customer loses all their rights. As an extreme example, you buy a Mac, you leave it in the sealed box, after 6 years and one day you open it in front of witnesses and it is physically broken, you'd get nothing).
It is very simple: If you, as a customer, buys an electronic device in the EU, and it malfunctions within 2 years, you are entitled to a free repair or replacement. There is no discussion possible. The store you bought it from has to take care of it, whether it is the manufacturer itself or some reseller. Its their problem.
That is of course not true. If it malfunctions within 2 years, it is up to you to prove that this is due to a defect that was present when you bought the device. If you drive your car over your brand new iPhone and it breaks, Apple isn't going to fix it for free. If you return a computer and they find fish inside, it won't get fixed either. And it may depend on the device how long it is supposed to last; there is no fixed number in most countries.
Apple did offer a warranty that covers some of the above mentioned cases for additional money. This is not illegal. It was illegal not to tell the customer about the rights he had anyway and to make the impression that only with the extended warranty, the customer was entitled to those rights. This was considered a "culpa in contrahendo".
That's exactly correct, but unfortunately much too complicated for most people who can't string two thoughts together in a straight line, and are just incapable of describing a legal situation correctly without muddling everything up.
So the problem in Italy was: When you sell products, you don't usually have to tell people all about their rights; they are supposed to figure that out themselves. BUT if you sell extended warranties, or insurance, or similar things, then you have to tell people exactly what they are getting for their money. And to tell them exactly what they are getting, you must tell them what rights they would have without extended warranty or insurance, what rights they would have with extended warranty or insurance, and what they get for their money is the difference. (Actually, what they get is slightly more; AppleCare will fix problems if the seller goes bankrupt, if you move to a different country, or if the seller is some bastard who won't fix the problem without going to court, even though they legally have to).
Whong. The EU law applies to manufacturers and requires them to provide a manufacturer's warranty for a "reasonable life" of the device. For computers and suchlike, that's 2 years according to the law.
Nonsense. It applies to sellers.
In the case of Apple, the manufacturer is a big and world wide known company. But in reality, most products are built by companies that you have never heard of, and that you would never be able to contact. If I go to the local supermarket and buy some electronic goods, made in China by god-knows-who, a manufacturer's warranty would be completely useless to me, because my chances of getting things fixed by a company somewhere in Shanghai are practically zero. Instead, I go to the seller, and they fix it.
2 years (minimum) from date of delivery, 5 years in Scotland and 6 years in the rest of the UK"
"Claim period" is the time where you can make a claim. So if the seller was supposed to fix problems that happened in the first two years, and your computer breaks after 23 months, and you claim two months later, they still have to fix it. If you claim 5 years and 11 months later, they still have to fix it. Except you have to prove that it broke within the first two years, and prove that it was the manufacturer's fault and not yours, which after almost six years might be difficult.
Since the time that goods have to last depends on the nature of the goods, there are probably some goods where you would get your money back if they fail after 5 1/2 years. Like a stone statue that I buy and put in my garden, I'd expect that not to crumble to pieces within 20 years.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I was thinking. So would-be pirates get together, buy a couple copies of the book, compare them for differences, and post a version of the book that combines both alterations in a random method thus ruining the tracking.
The "Nirvana fallacy" is the assumption that something needs to be perfect to be usable. If I have an ebook, and you want the same ebook, I can just copy it and give the copy to you. I can send it to you as an email attachment. Nothing could be simpler. 80% of all customers would know how to do this. And that is stopped if I know that by giving you a copy I put the book out of my control, you could be some idiot who puts the stuff on a website and then it's my problem, so I'm not giving you a copy.
Now the effort involved in giving you a copy is so much higher; "buy a couple of books" is nonsense because why would a buy a couple of books to give you a copy, instead of you buying a book? And it takes substantial effort to make that copy, so it's not going to happen.
And finally, _if_ the publisher finds a copy with watermark removed, then I would think the copier has gone straight into criminal territory, so while the risk of getting caught is lower, the possible damage to you is much higher.
I think that map makers have been doing this for a century or more.
I remember a pub guide with 1,200 pub reviews including three fake ones, and a newspaper copied (and slightly rearranged the words) of ten of their reviews and managed to copy one of the fake ones. Good fun.
They are legally compelled to comply and maintain their silence in regard to specifics of the program, but that does not comply them from ethical obligation. If for example Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple refused to provide this cooperation with the Intelligence Community, what do you think the government would do? Shut them down?
Put their CEO into jail?
Next we can discuss what their ethical obligation actually is. Which probably depends on the numbers involved. If there were a million requests per year, then I would assume that there are an awful number of completely innocent people hit by this, and the companies would have an ethical obligation to do what they can to stop it (and it would be close to a situation where citizens should overthrow their government). If say Apple received 100 such requests, then it is much more likely that these requests are justified.
Many, many issues abound here. How secure is the separation between the two networks? What protections do I have in case of someone using my connection maliciously? How will this affect my total bandwidth and speed?
In the UK, it's voluntary, and it's your payment for being able to use free WiFi everywhere. How secure is it? Well, your WiFi is broadcasting anyway, so how secure do you think _that_ is? If someone uses your connection maliciously - can you think of a better alibi? Yes, your WiFi is used, and your Internet bandwidth is used.
Actually it seems that they are being compelled to be a bit less than truthful e.g. must be aggregated with all LE requests, only for a specific 6 month period, only reported in bands of 1000's.
How does that make it not truthful? "We received between 5,000 and 5,999 requests" if the numbers were indeed in that range would be absolutely truthful.
What, if anything, compels Apple and the others to be truthful about these numbers?
The fact that the truth tends to come out eventually. A few employees at Apple _know_ the correct numbers. In a few years time, a few ex-employees at Apple will know the correct numbers. And eventually, some ex-Apple employee who is really unhappy with the company will know the correct numbers and tell them.
look, these are just the normal warrants. like for robberies, drug dealings and such.
these are not the nsa secret mass warrants, since they're not at liberty to tell about those.
My interpretation is this: Apple (and probably Microsoft, Google, etc. ) have got permission not to tell us how many "secret" warrants they received, but how many warrants in total - secret and the "normal" ones. I suppose they won't be allowed to give the number of "normal" warrants anymore. So if they say "about 5,000" that could be 10 normal and 4,990 super secret, or 4,999 normal and 1 super secret warrant, we don't know. If you define "mass warrants" as "more than 10,000" then there were no "secret nsa mass warrants" to Apple.
Parents buy Internet access. Parent buy computers. By definition, since child labor is forbidden.
Where do you get this "child labor is forbidden" from? Plenty of kids in the western world are working, and making money, quite legitimately. I did.
if your son came up to you and told you he didnt "feel" like a person who was mobile, and wanted to break his own back and or neck and become a quadriplegic, you would support him right? because thats what he "feels" he is right? cutting off your own cock is totally normal, no one thinks its wrong to chop off your cock with a knife at all....
I don't know whether you are just stupid or pretend to be...
There are two gender states that are both considered "normal": Male and female. Usually these states agree with the body of a person, sometimes they don't. Changing the body to make it agree with the perceived gender of the person isn't hurting the body. Being unable to move is not considered "normal". That's the difference.
I apologize and do not set out to offend anyone. But changing the appearance of gender does not equal changing gender in my mind. A man that has his genitals altered and breasts installed and dresses as a woman is still a man in my mind. It is similar to a cross dresser in a way. A man who dresses as a woman will still be jailed with men. A man that has breast implants will be jailed with men as well. I wonder how jails are handling folks who have had penises or vaginas altered as well.
Well, you are just ignorant then. That person that you thought of as a man never was a man, she just had the wrong parts installed, and an operation will fix that as good as we can do it.
Transgendered isn't the same as transvestite. Any man can dress up as a woman and make dubious claims, but a psychologist won't be fooled by it. As such, you've succeeded in trolling Slashdot in your ignorance.
You seem to be very confused here. A transvestite is indeed a man who likes dressing as a woman (or a woman who likes dressing as a man). And every male transvestite will tell you that indeed they are a man. Like with non-transvestite men, the huge majority have no interest in sex with other men. Transsexual is something completely different. Transsexual is a man or woman stuck in the wrong body.
A man wanting to call himself a lady is more than welcome to.. but he is still a man, your feelings do not change reality.
This isn't about a man wanting to call himself a lady. It is about a lady having the bad luck to be stuck in the wrong body.
If the body is male (has penis/gonads/musculature), you're male. If the body is female (uterus/ovaries etc), you're female. End of story. What you 'feel' is irrelevant.
Even the Iranian government is less ignorant than you.
No amount of surgery can change the chromosomes a person has, or give functional sex organs from the opposite sex. Such surgery is cosmetic, and involves hormone therapy because your body doesnt produce those hormones. Any guesses as to why that might be?
It's amazing that even a backward country like Iran is more open-minded in this situation. They say (exactly as Germany): The personality of a person has a gender, and the body of a person has a gender. Most time they match, sometimes they don't match. That's a medical problem that needs to be fixed. And since you can't or don't want to change the personality, you change the body. Simple as that.
Very true, but what has Apple invented? A serious question.
For example... IEEE Standard arithmetic (together with Intel).
For example... An efficient method for drawing into non-rectangular areas. Which is essential for overlapping windows (thanks, Bill Atkinson).
Just to mention a few things that are not widely known.
Check out the Women in Engineering forums on "hostile work environment" specifically with regard to professional conferences -- then come back and explain why gamers' get-togethers are so much better.
There is no hostile environment for women on any professional conference. Obviously, some conferences are not professional.
Most UK muggings, for example, include the theft of a mobile phone, but it's rarely the phone the thieves want. They've read about tracking and hidden camera apps, and few of them have the technical nous to spot such a thing.
The purpose of stealing the handset and then discarding it is to delay pursuers, thus providing more time during which stolen credit cards and other spoils can be turned into cash.
If I control the OS how exactly do you prevent me from uninstalling/deleting this software? How do you prevent me from patching around this?
Apple controls the firmware. That will make it very, very hard to install a different OS, and impossible to boot into it.
Yeah, right. You really believe the police won't have a kill-switch kill-switch?
If you use two-factor authentication, even Apple won't have a kill-switch kill-switch. Anyway, what the feature does is it first wipes the phone (which takes a tenth of a second because it only needs to wipe the encryption keys which are only ever kept on the phone), _then_ activates this locking feature. If the police has a kill-switch kill-switch, then worst case a happy policeman got a new iPhone without paying.
I'm sure that with everything we've learned recently regarding the Government and phones, there's no way this could -possibly- be abused!
1. You mean "what we were told", not "what we learned". Just like the MSR scare a few years ago, when millions of idiot mothers believed one doctor and couldn't be convinced by anything the government said, and it turned out that doctor had actually been paid to produce the results that he did produce. Why do you believe one man and his claims? (I think Apple's reply was "we have never ever heard of Prism, and nobody gets any data without court issued subpoena).
2. So how could this be abused? The feature is that nobody can re-activate your phone without knowing your Apple Id and password. If your phone is stolen, this feature cannot be abused - worst case it can be prevented from working, so you are not off any worse. If your phone is not stolen, worst case someone could manage to remotely wipe your phone, in which case you have the Apple Id and password to re-activate it.
by the way if it has a manufacturing defect apple is on hook for fixing it FOREVER! not just 6 months. not just 12 months. forever, because the defect was in the product when they sold it.
On the other hand, if it lasts long enough then it is by definition not defective. (And, by law, six years after the purchase, five years in Scotland, the customer loses all their rights. As an extreme example, you buy a Mac, you leave it in the sealed box, after 6 years and one day you open it in front of witnesses and it is physically broken, you'd get nothing).
It is very simple: If you, as a customer, buys an electronic device in the EU, and it malfunctions within 2 years, you are entitled to a free repair or replacement. There is no discussion possible. The store you bought it from has to take care of it, whether it is the manufacturer itself or some reseller. Its their problem.
That is of course not true. If it malfunctions within 2 years, it is up to you to prove that this is due to a defect that was present when you bought the device. If you drive your car over your brand new iPhone and it breaks, Apple isn't going to fix it for free. If you return a computer and they find fish inside, it won't get fixed either. And it may depend on the device how long it is supposed to last; there is no fixed number in most countries.
Apple did offer a warranty that covers some of the above mentioned cases for additional money. This is not illegal. It was illegal not to tell the customer about the rights he had anyway and to make the impression that only with the extended warranty, the customer was entitled to those rights. This was considered a "culpa in contrahendo".
That's exactly correct, but unfortunately much too complicated for most people who can't string two thoughts together in a straight line, and are just incapable of describing a legal situation correctly without muddling everything up.
So the problem in Italy was: When you sell products, you don't usually have to tell people all about their rights; they are supposed to figure that out themselves. BUT if you sell extended warranties, or insurance, or similar things, then you have to tell people exactly what they are getting for their money. And to tell them exactly what they are getting, you must tell them what rights they would have without extended warranty or insurance, what rights they would have with extended warranty or insurance, and what they get for their money is the difference. (Actually, what they get is slightly more; AppleCare will fix problems if the seller goes bankrupt, if you move to a different country, or if the seller is some bastard who won't fix the problem without going to court, even though they legally have to).
Whong. The EU law applies to manufacturers and requires them to provide a manufacturer's warranty for a "reasonable life" of the device. For computers and suchlike, that's 2 years according to the law.
Nonsense. It applies to sellers.
In the case of Apple, the manufacturer is a big and world wide known company. But in reality, most products are built by companies that you have never heard of, and that you would never be able to contact. If I go to the local supermarket and buy some electronic goods, made in China by god-knows-who, a manufacturer's warranty would be completely useless to me, because my chances of getting things fixed by a company somewhere in Shanghai are practically zero. Instead, I go to the seller, and they fix it.
2 years (minimum) from date of delivery, 5 years in Scotland and 6 years in the rest of the UK"
"Claim period" is the time where you can make a claim. So if the seller was supposed to fix problems that happened in the first two years, and your computer breaks after 23 months, and you claim two months later, they still have to fix it. If you claim 5 years and 11 months later, they still have to fix it. Except you have to prove that it broke within the first two years, and prove that it was the manufacturer's fault and not yours, which after almost six years might be difficult.
Since the time that goods have to last depends on the nature of the goods, there are probably some goods where you would get your money back if they fail after 5 1/2 years. Like a stone statue that I buy and put in my garden, I'd expect that not to crumble to pieces within 20 years.