You are by law required to give at least the EU standard for warranty, you can never write your product out of this.
As usual, confused and unclear. "You" as the manufacturer can give whatever warranty you want. Obviously giving a longer warranty makes customers happier and makes them trust your products more, but you can give any warranty you like. "You" as the seller (the store) selling a product don't have to give any warranty, but you have to follow the law and make sure the goods you sell are of reasonable quality, and fix them if they fail, according to the law.
The article, as many articles before, confuses "manufacturer's warranty", which is unchanged, and "legal rights against the seller". Apple as the manufacturer can give any manufacturer warranty they like in the EU, and they give the same warranty as any other manufacturer. The seller, that is the shop that sold the goods, whoever that seller is, has legal obligations to make sure the product works for a reasonable time.
The only thing that has changed is that Apple makes more clear on the page where they explain their one year manufacturer's warranty, that you have other rights against the seller. If you look at Dell's website for example, there is not the slightest trace of such information, even though Dell doesn't sell through any store, so if you buy a Dell product, then they are _always_ the seller (whereas Apple is sometimes the seller, and Apple stores also sell other company's products, in which case that Apple store also is the seller responsible to handle your legal rights).
He most definitely has not committed treason. He did commit a crime by disclosing classified information, but I think we need to first investigate and determine whether the government was indeed breaking the law. It cannot be illegal to reveal classified information relating to illegal activity. Otherwise, our government would be able to act completely unchecked by simply choosing to classify information on what they are doing, with no justification.
What would be the situation if the information isn't actually true? Something that isn't true can't be classified, or at least I would think it can't?
Or,,,, if "the passenger was the one using the phone" becomes an acceptable excuse, everyone would use it whether it's true or not. Either way, the law serves no purpose except to screw with people.
It should be quite possible to add a "black box" feature to a modern smartphone, with the lock screen allowing access to the black box. Records when the phone was last turned on (so if it was in my pocket all the time, the cops only see that it was turned off the last two hours before the accident, for example). And records sound + camera input when the phone senses it is moving at speed. Admittedly, if you were the passenger discussing a bank robbery when an accident happened, you'd be in trouble.
I was a little surprised by this since I have a mac and an ipad and a bunch of free books in iBooks. I had simply never noticed before that I can't actually read those books on the mac.
For free and for DRM-free ePub books: There's an app for that (on the Mac App Store).
They also claim it's a 256bit CPU in their slide. Not exactly confidence inspiring.
Well, it is. Obviously, the previous generation of Intel CPUs had 256 bit registers as well, but Haswell has a much more complete 256 bit instruction set, including many three register instructions (that is register A = register B op register C, saving a move instruction in many cases), and Haswell is the very first Intel x86 style processor with fused multiply-add instructions.
On the contrary, Apple didn't really show anything very new here. Maybe the new Mac, but iOS 7 in particular is just an incremental upgrade with no big headline features like they have always had in the past.
Apple seems to have lost its spark, at a time when its rivals are releasing some really new and interesting stuff.
On the other hand, you seem to have not the slightest clue what Apple's design goals are. Some companies design phones for people who think that having a bigger phone indicates you have a bigger dick, and actually think that's important. Apple makes iOS more and more invisible. It's not _supposed_ to be what you call "new and interesting". Once you grow up you don't care about "new and interesting" anymore.
I'm pretty sure it's just a UI redesign. There's no reason why Apple would change their multitasking API. The exact same justifications for it apply now as 2 years ago when they introduced it.
1. iOS has been a full Unix implementation all the time, so no _capabilities_ needed to be added, ever.
2. iOS runs on a device with severe power limitations, so given a choice of giving apps the capability of running in the background and giving users decent battery life, battery life is more important.
3. If you watched the keynote, _any_ app can now run in the background all the time, but iOS uses a very simple and clever mechanism to avoid wasting CPU time: Background time is limited depending on how much the user _actively_ uses the app in the foreground. If the user is on facebook for eight hours every day of their (sad) life, it doesn't hurt much allowing it to run in the background as well. If I use a weather app once in the morning for two minutes and never again all day, it's not allowed much CPU time running in the background.
Can they make you unlock the door to the room where the chimney is instead of having to blow the door up?
Good question. What would "make you unlock" mean? They can't hit you until you open it. They can only take you to court. If it is a normal door, the judge would say "don't bother _me_, just kick the door in". Even then, the judge cannot "make you unlock" the door. He could put you into jail until you unlock the door, but he can't make you unlock it.
A murder that is not related to child porn. For him to decrypt those drives, he would be incriminating himself for the murder.
As said before, that's tough. Same if the police comes to your house with a search warrant looking for stolen goods, you can't say "sorry, can't let you in, there's a dead body in the kitchen". If the police is in a place legally, then they can use anything they can see.
Wouldn't that be the Fourth Ammendment not the Fifth Ammendment? I understand and agree with the Fifth Ammendment preventing forced password disclosure and the Fourth Ammendment preventing the cops from taking/decrypting the drives without a warrant but I am confused how they are breaking the Fifth by decrypting the drives after they had recieved a warrant.
That was the (then) correct situation. They had a search warrant. Imagine he decrypts the drive, and the police finds lots of pictures. But no actual evidence on the drive itself that _he_ owned the pictures and not someone else. In that case, not the contents of the hard drive, but the fact that he decrypted it, would have been evidence that the pictures belonged to him. And that would be self incriminating. But today, the police has actually proof that he is the owner - so the fact that he can decrypt the drive doesn't show the police anything they don't know.
What if he's cheated on his taxes and his tax documents are on one of those other drives? Forcing him to decrypt the contents of the other drives could force him to incriminate himself for crimes unrelated to the original search.
He wouldn't be incriminating _himself_. Like when you open the door when police comes with a search warrant; they find evidence that incriminates you, but it isn't self incrimination.
For your fear that evidence is found unrelated to the original crime: Tough shit. If they search your house, the same thing happens. Anything that is found while following the orders of the search warrant can be used against you. That is even true if they go to the wrong house by mistake (one case where the police had a search warrant for the apartment on the top floor, didn't realise there were two apartments, and found a gun while searching the wrong one). The law isn't there to protect criminals, it is there to protect innocent people, and protecting criminals is just an unfortunate side effect.
Obviously they would have a hard time explaining why they checked his tax documents while looking for pictures. Not only checking them, but checking them to the extent they could see fraud. But if he has a directory "Tax fraud 2012" or "Forged bank statements", I think they have the right to check.
I would wager that the quantity of child pornography that he possesses could determine what extent his final charges are, yes? Therefore, wouldn't it make sense that he would further incriminate himself by giving up that information? So it makes sense to me that he should still retain that protection.
Further evidence is incriminating, absolutely. But it is not self-incriminating. If the police ask him "is there CP on that encrypted drive", answering "yes" would be self incriminating. To see the difference between "incriminating" and "self-incriminating", a very simple test: If he says "I am guilty", and a policeman says "he is guilty", is it the same thing? No. One is a confession, one is just an unproven statement. So if he said that, it would be self incriminating. If he decrypts the hard drive, or a policeman decrypts the hard drive, is it the same thing? As far as evidence on the hard drive is found, no. Therefore, giving the police access the the encrypted data is not self incriminating. But if the hard drive contains lots of CP, but no evidence whatsoever that it is his CP? In that case, the fact alone that he decrypted the hard drive shows he had access to it, while a policeman encrypting it (with the help of a huge computer, or a password given to him in an anonymous phone call) doesn't prove it. Therefore "self incriminating". But as the previous judge said, they _know_ it is his drive. Therefore, no self incrimination.
I have lots of old encrypted data that I no longer remember the password for. Years of mail archives made in the 90s that I can't recall now. I keep them around in case I ever happen to remember and because they are only a few megabytes.
I also have a few old HDD lying around that are fully encrypted but which I destroyed the key files for. Formatting them takes a long, long time. Now the key is gone there is no way to decrypt them, so essentially they are full of random bytes. Lots of companies do this too, to avoid lengthy and expensive drive sanitizing.
As you say, old data, old hard drives. It could probably be established that these files were not modified for many, many years, and that the old hard drives were not touched for many years, so your claim that you can't decrypt them would be reasonable. Or you might have purchased a used drive on eBay yesterday, which happened to be encrypted. Same thing. If the drives were connected to your computer, then it's hard to say you don't have the password.
in addition, i will also take the counter point on decrypting the HD. i take the essential meaning of the fifth as to you should never have to provide evidence against yourself.
You are confused by two different uses of the word "evidence". The phrase "give evidence" means "give information and answer questions formally and in person in a law court or at an inquiry". That is not the same as "evidence" with the meaning "information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object".
You don't have to "give evidence" against yourself. But you can be forced to "provide things that are evidence". There is a good reason why you cannot be forced to "give evidence" against yourself: Because you could be under pressure, threatened, and so on, to give _false_ evidence against yourself. That's not the case when you are forced to decrypt a hard drive: Whatever evidence is found there is the true evidence.
If the police arrives with a warrant, you don't have to open the door for them. It is not a crime to not open that door. However, they have the right to knock it down and you can't claim damages that you may occur because of it. You don't have to actively assist the police in serving the warrant. As long as you are not actively obstructing them (putting up extra barricades, destroying evidence after they announced their warrant), you're not doing anything illegal.
That's a good theory, but very unlikely that it was ever tested in court. Because as the situation stands, the police isn't going to court, they are just coming in to your house by force and all you got for not opening is a smashed door. What would happen if the police tries to get in without any success, because you happen to have a twelve inch steel door? In that case, I would think they would go to court and you would be ordered to open the door.
Imagine we had this: an accused, who has a safe made from unobtanium (which needless to say, is as hard as Minecraft bedrock) with an unpickable lock. Can the accused be ordered to turn over the key if a search warrant to search the safe is properly executed? If this is the case, then why can't someone be ordered to turn over encryption keys in the case of encrypted data where there is a properly issued search warrant?
The same situation: If the police doesn't know for a fact that it is your safe and that you had access to it, and the fact that you can open it incriminates you, they couldn't force you. Imagine there's a gun inside that was used for a murder. A witness saw a person putting the gun in the safe but can't see who that was. The gun is wiped clean. It is without doubt the murder weapon, but there are no fingerprints on it that would prove who the murderer is. But by opening the safe, the police would have evidence against you - that's self incrimination. On the other hand, if the safe contents is evidence, like your phone which you used to record a video of you shooting the victim, then opening the safe is not self incriminating.
That judge didn't say "forced decryption of hard drive violates fifth amendment". The judge said "I'll look at the case and make a decision, and there will be no forced decryption until I make my decision".
Myself, I cannot see anything wrong with the original decision. "Fifth amendment" is about self incrimination in statements to police or to the court. This case is about being forced to give the police or court access to evidence.
If the police has a warrant to search your home, it isn't obviously clear whether you can be forced to open the door, and it doesn't matter in practice because the police is allowed to and will break your door, so the only practical difference is two minutes of work for the police, and a broken door for yourself. This situation is exactly the same, except that the door is unbreakable.
Imagine you stand in front of a house door, the police arrives with a warrant and ask you to open the door. You say "It's not my house, break the door if you like, but I don't have keys to let you in". There is no doubt that the police has the right to get in. But opening the door would prove that you have access to the house, so if the police doesn't know that, opening the door would be self incriminating. Not so if you are _inside_. The police would know that you have access, so opening the door is not self incriminating. Giving the police access to the evidence inside doesn't count as "self incriminating" and isn't protected by the fifth amendment.
And it's the same with an encrypted hard drive. You can't be forced to admit that you can decrypt the hard drive, if that knowledge, the knowledge that you _can_ decrypt, was incriminating. But once it is known that the hard drive is yours, then decrypting the hard drive is not self incriminating.
Samsung wants to let Apple know that they will not be bullied. They are able to fight them back.
Apple reacted when Samsung copied the design of their products. That's not exactly "bullying". On the other hand, Samsung seems to be very good at bullying. Like journalists and even members of parliament in Korea losing their jobs when they critisize Samsung.
Apple's patents are on design, silly things like rounded corners and page bounce. They are easy to work around.
Of course they are easy to work around. The problem is Samsung didn't want to work around them, they wanted their products to look like iPhones and iPads. And look what happened: All those companies that didn't sell iPhone and iPad lookalikes are not selling. The one company that copied Apple's designs became the most successful.
I keep seeing them quoting Steve Jobs' biography as evidence
That's something I find weird. Anywhere else, this would be disregarded as "hearsay". First, just because it's written in Steve Jobs' biography isn't proof he said it. Second, just because he said it doesn't mean it's true. That's what "hearsay" is about.
While being in UK someone asked Swedish authorities directly: is there a guarantee that he will not be extradited to US upon return to Sweden -- and there was no guarantee. This rape charges theater staged by Swedish authorities means they are completely on the leash with US, so I would not call it "safest place".
Why would anyone be willing to sign "we guarantee there will be no extradition"? It would probably be illegal to do so. The only situation where a guarantee could be made is if the USA asks Sweden for an extradition, and a Swedish court says "no". Unless and until a Swedish court has looked at it, nobody can say there will be no extradition.
Oh, wait, I forgot. On Slashdot, scientists are morons and people who read an article on a pop-sci site a month ago know everything, and any use of statistics can and must instantly be banished with the Words Of Power, Which I Will Not Utter Here.
Fact is that many people are very bad as statistics, including many people writing scientific papers. And yes, there are scientists who are morons.
In this case, I cannot find what percentage of elective surgery was performed on Fridays, but 4.5% was performed on Saturdays and Sundays (that was mentioned to explain why these two days were combined in the statistics). Since with random selecction of days 28% of surgery would be performed on Saturday / Sunday but in reality there is only 4.5%, this strongly suggests that patients having selective surgery on weekends are not a random selection of all patients. I couldn't find numbers about the percentage of cases on Friday.
Slashdot Mirror
You are by law required to give at least the EU standard for warranty, you can never write your product out of this.
As usual, confused and unclear. "You" as the manufacturer can give whatever warranty you want. Obviously giving a longer warranty makes customers happier and makes them trust your products more, but you can give any warranty you like. "You" as the seller (the store) selling a product don't have to give any warranty, but you have to follow the law and make sure the goods you sell are of reasonable quality, and fix them if they fail, according to the law.
The article, as many articles before, confuses "manufacturer's warranty", which is unchanged, and "legal rights against the seller". Apple as the manufacturer can give any manufacturer warranty they like in the EU, and they give the same warranty as any other manufacturer. The seller, that is the shop that sold the goods, whoever that seller is, has legal obligations to make sure the product works for a reasonable time.
The only thing that has changed is that Apple makes more clear on the page where they explain their one year manufacturer's warranty, that you have other rights against the seller. If you look at Dell's website for example, there is not the slightest trace of such information, even though Dell doesn't sell through any store, so if you buy a Dell product, then they are _always_ the seller (whereas Apple is sometimes the seller, and Apple stores also sell other company's products, in which case that Apple store also is the seller responsible to handle your legal rights).
He most definitely has not committed treason. He did commit a crime by disclosing classified information, but I think we need to first investigate and determine whether the government was indeed breaking the law. It cannot be illegal to reveal classified information relating to illegal activity. Otherwise, our government would be able to act completely unchecked by simply choosing to classify information on what they are doing, with no justification.
What would be the situation if the information isn't actually true? Something that isn't true can't be classified, or at least I would think it can't?
Or,,,, if "the passenger was the one using the phone" becomes an acceptable excuse, everyone would use it whether it's true or not. Either way, the law serves no purpose except to screw with people.
It should be quite possible to add a "black box" feature to a modern smartphone, with the lock screen allowing access to the black box. Records when the phone was last turned on (so if it was in my pocket all the time, the cops only see that it was turned off the last two hours before the accident, for example). And records sound + camera input when the phone senses it is moving at speed. Admittedly, if you were the passenger discussing a bank robbery when an accident happened, you'd be in trouble.
I was a little surprised by this since I have a mac and an ipad and a bunch of free books in iBooks. I had simply never noticed before that I can't actually read those books on the mac.
For free and for DRM-free ePub books: There's an app for that (on the Mac App Store).
They also claim it's a 256bit CPU in their slide. Not exactly confidence inspiring.
Well, it is. Obviously, the previous generation of Intel CPUs had 256 bit registers as well, but Haswell has a much more complete 256 bit instruction set, including many three register instructions (that is register A = register B op register C, saving a move instruction in many cases), and Haswell is the very first Intel x86 style processor with fused multiply-add instructions.
Is it me or is iOS 7 a total rip-off of Android and Google's apps?
It's just you.
On the contrary, Apple didn't really show anything very new here. Maybe the new Mac, but iOS 7 in particular is just an incremental upgrade with no big headline features like they have always had in the past.
Apple seems to have lost its spark, at a time when its rivals are releasing some really new and interesting stuff.
On the other hand, you seem to have not the slightest clue what Apple's design goals are. Some companies design phones for people who think that having a bigger phone indicates you have a bigger dick, and actually think that's important. Apple makes iOS more and more invisible. It's not _supposed_ to be what you call "new and interesting". Once you grow up you don't care about "new and interesting" anymore.
I'm pretty sure it's just a UI redesign. There's no reason why Apple would change their multitasking API. The exact same justifications for it apply now as 2 years ago when they introduced it.
1. iOS has been a full Unix implementation all the time, so no _capabilities_ needed to be added, ever.
2. iOS runs on a device with severe power limitations, so given a choice of giving apps the capability of running in the background and giving users decent battery life, battery life is more important.
3. If you watched the keynote, _any_ app can now run in the background all the time, but iOS uses a very simple and clever mechanism to avoid wasting CPU time: Background time is limited depending on how much the user _actively_ uses the app in the foreground. If the user is on facebook for eight hours every day of their (sad) life, it doesn't hurt much allowing it to run in the background as well. If I use a weather app once in the morning for two minutes and never again all day, it's not allowed much CPU time running in the background.
Can they make you unlock the door to the room where the chimney is instead of having to blow the door up?
Good question. What would "make you unlock" mean? They can't hit you until you open it. They can only take you to court. If it is a normal door, the judge would say "don't bother _me_, just kick the door in". Even then, the judge cannot "make you unlock" the door. He could put you into jail until you unlock the door, but he can't make you unlock it.
A murder that is not related to child porn. For him to decrypt those drives, he would be incriminating himself for the murder.
As said before, that's tough. Same if the police comes to your house with a search warrant looking for stolen goods, you can't say "sorry, can't let you in, there's a dead body in the kitchen". If the police is in a place legally, then they can use anything they can see.
Wouldn't that be the Fourth Ammendment not the Fifth Ammendment? I understand and agree with the Fifth Ammendment preventing forced password disclosure and the Fourth Ammendment preventing the cops from taking/decrypting the drives without a warrant but I am confused how they are breaking the Fifth by decrypting the drives after they had recieved a warrant.
That was the (then) correct situation. They had a search warrant. Imagine he decrypts the drive, and the police finds lots of pictures. But no actual evidence on the drive itself that _he_ owned the pictures and not someone else. In that case, not the contents of the hard drive, but the fact that he decrypted it, would have been evidence that the pictures belonged to him. And that would be self incriminating. But today, the police has actually proof that he is the owner - so the fact that he can decrypt the drive doesn't show the police anything they don't know.
What if he's cheated on his taxes and his tax documents are on one of those other drives? Forcing him to decrypt the contents of the other drives could force him to incriminate himself for crimes unrelated to the original search.
He wouldn't be incriminating _himself_. Like when you open the door when police comes with a search warrant; they find evidence that incriminates you, but it isn't self incrimination.
For your fear that evidence is found unrelated to the original crime: Tough shit. If they search your house, the same thing happens. Anything that is found while following the orders of the search warrant can be used against you. That is even true if they go to the wrong house by mistake (one case where the police had a search warrant for the apartment on the top floor, didn't realise there were two apartments, and found a gun while searching the wrong one). The law isn't there to protect criminals, it is there to protect innocent people, and protecting criminals is just an unfortunate side effect.
Obviously they would have a hard time explaining why they checked his tax documents while looking for pictures. Not only checking them, but checking them to the extent they could see fraud. But if he has a directory "Tax fraud 2012" or "Forged bank statements", I think they have the right to check.
I would wager that the quantity of child pornography that he possesses could determine what extent his final charges are, yes? Therefore, wouldn't it make sense that he would further incriminate himself by giving up that information? So it makes sense to me that he should still retain that protection.
Further evidence is incriminating, absolutely. But it is not self-incriminating. If the police ask him "is there CP on that encrypted drive", answering "yes" would be self incriminating. To see the difference between "incriminating" and "self-incriminating", a very simple test: If he says "I am guilty", and a policeman says "he is guilty", is it the same thing? No. One is a confession, one is just an unproven statement. So if he said that, it would be self incriminating. If he decrypts the hard drive, or a policeman decrypts the hard drive, is it the same thing? As far as evidence on the hard drive is found, no. Therefore, giving the police access the the encrypted data is not self incriminating. But if the hard drive contains lots of CP, but no evidence whatsoever that it is his CP? In that case, the fact alone that he decrypted the hard drive shows he had access to it, while a policeman encrypting it (with the help of a huge computer, or a password given to him in an anonymous phone call) doesn't prove it. Therefore "self incriminating". But as the previous judge said, they _know_ it is his drive. Therefore, no self incrimination.
Imagine that it's not your house but your mind. Are you required to let the police in -
Your house and your mind are different things. That's why there are different laws.
I have lots of old encrypted data that I no longer remember the password for. Years of mail archives made in the 90s that I can't recall now. I keep them around in case I ever happen to remember and because they are only a few megabytes.
I also have a few old HDD lying around that are fully encrypted but which I destroyed the key files for. Formatting them takes a long, long time. Now the key is gone there is no way to decrypt them, so essentially they are full of random bytes. Lots of companies do this too, to avoid lengthy and expensive drive sanitizing.
As you say, old data, old hard drives. It could probably be established that these files were not modified for many, many years, and that the old hard drives were not touched for many years, so your claim that you can't decrypt them would be reasonable. Or you might have purchased a used drive on eBay yesterday, which happened to be encrypted. Same thing. If the drives were connected to your computer, then it's hard to say you don't have the password.
in addition, i will also take the counter point on decrypting the HD. i take the essential meaning of the fifth as to you should never have to provide evidence against yourself.
You are confused by two different uses of the word "evidence". The phrase "give evidence" means "give information and answer questions formally and in person in a law court or at an inquiry". That is not the same as "evidence" with the meaning "information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object".
You don't have to "give evidence" against yourself. But you can be forced to "provide things that are evidence". There is a good reason why you cannot be forced to "give evidence" against yourself: Because you could be under pressure, threatened, and so on, to give _false_ evidence against yourself. That's not the case when you are forced to decrypt a hard drive: Whatever evidence is found there is the true evidence.
If the police arrives with a warrant, you don't have to open the door for them. It is not a crime to not open that door. However, they have the right to knock it down and you can't claim damages that you may occur because of it. You don't have to actively assist the police in serving the warrant. As long as you are not actively obstructing them (putting up extra barricades, destroying evidence after they announced their warrant), you're not doing anything illegal.
That's a good theory, but very unlikely that it was ever tested in court. Because as the situation stands, the police isn't going to court, they are just coming in to your house by force and all you got for not opening is a smashed door. What would happen if the police tries to get in without any success, because you happen to have a twelve inch steel door? In that case, I would think they would go to court and you would be ordered to open the door.
Imagine we had this: an accused, who has a safe made from unobtanium (which needless to say, is as hard as Minecraft bedrock) with an unpickable lock. Can the accused be ordered to turn over the key if a search warrant to search the safe is properly executed? If this is the case, then why can't someone be ordered to turn over encryption keys in the case of encrypted data where there is a properly issued search warrant?
The same situation: If the police doesn't know for a fact that it is your safe and that you had access to it, and the fact that you can open it incriminates you, they couldn't force you. Imagine there's a gun inside that was used for a murder. A witness saw a person putting the gun in the safe but can't see who that was. The gun is wiped clean. It is without doubt the murder weapon, but there are no fingerprints on it that would prove who the murderer is. But by opening the safe, the police would have evidence against you - that's self incrimination. On the other hand, if the safe contents is evidence, like your phone which you used to record a video of you shooting the victim, then opening the safe is not self incriminating.
That judge didn't say "forced decryption of hard drive violates fifth amendment". The judge said "I'll look at the case and make a decision, and there will be no forced decryption until I make my decision".
Myself, I cannot see anything wrong with the original decision. "Fifth amendment" is about self incrimination in statements to police or to the court. This case is about being forced to give the police or court access to evidence.
If the police has a warrant to search your home, it isn't obviously clear whether you can be forced to open the door, and it doesn't matter in practice because the police is allowed to and will break your door, so the only practical difference is two minutes of work for the police, and a broken door for yourself. This situation is exactly the same, except that the door is unbreakable.
Imagine you stand in front of a house door, the police arrives with a warrant and ask you to open the door. You say "It's not my house, break the door if you like, but I don't have keys to let you in". There is no doubt that the police has the right to get in. But opening the door would prove that you have access to the house, so if the police doesn't know that, opening the door would be self incriminating. Not so if you are _inside_. The police would know that you have access, so opening the door is not self incriminating. Giving the police access to the evidence inside doesn't count as "self incriminating" and isn't protected by the fifth amendment.
And it's the same with an encrypted hard drive. You can't be forced to admit that you can decrypt the hard drive, if that knowledge, the knowledge that you _can_ decrypt, was incriminating. But once it is known that the hard drive is yours, then decrypting the hard drive is not self incriminating.
Samsung wants to let Apple know that they will not be bullied. They are able to fight them back.
Apple reacted when Samsung copied the design of their products. That's not exactly "bullying". On the other hand, Samsung seems to be very good at bullying. Like journalists and even members of parliament in Korea losing their jobs when they critisize Samsung.
Apple's patents are on design, silly things like rounded corners and page bounce. They are easy to work around.
Of course they are easy to work around. The problem is Samsung didn't want to work around them, they wanted their products to look like iPhones and iPads. And look what happened: All those companies that didn't sell iPhone and iPad lookalikes are not selling. The one company that copied Apple's designs became the most successful.
I keep seeing them quoting Steve Jobs' biography as evidence
That's something I find weird. Anywhere else, this would be disregarded as "hearsay". First, just because it's written in Steve Jobs' biography isn't proof he said it. Second, just because he said it doesn't mean it's true. That's what "hearsay" is about.
While being in UK someone asked Swedish authorities directly: is there a guarantee that he will not be extradited to US upon return to Sweden -- and there was no guarantee. This rape charges theater staged by Swedish authorities means they are completely on the leash with US, so I would not call it "safest place".
Why would anyone be willing to sign "we guarantee there will be no extradition"? It would probably be illegal to do so. The only situation where a guarantee could be made is if the USA asks Sweden for an extradition, and a Swedish court says "no". Unless and until a Swedish court has looked at it, nobody can say there will be no extradition.
Oh, wait, I forgot. On Slashdot, scientists are morons and people who read an article on a pop-sci site a month ago know everything, and any use of statistics can and must instantly be banished with the Words Of Power, Which I Will Not Utter Here.
Fact is that many people are very bad as statistics, including many people writing scientific papers. And yes, there are scientists who are morons.
In this case, I cannot find what percentage of elective surgery was performed on Fridays, but 4.5% was performed on Saturdays and Sundays (that was mentioned to explain why these two days were combined in the statistics). Since with random selecction of days 28% of surgery would be performed on Saturday / Sunday but in reality there is only 4.5%, this strongly suggests that patients having selective surgery on weekends are not a random selection of all patients. I couldn't find numbers about the percentage of cases on Friday.