In the UK, you should have kept your invoice when you bought the game on holiday, and then you can go to a small claims court and ask them for damages. Obviously you can't complain to the retailer who may be thousands of miles away.
However, on my last holiday I saw fake products in such huge amounts, you might have a hard time convincing anyone that your product was an original and not a fake.
By all means lets have an investigation. The Swedish authorities want to question him. They can do that in the UK, or by video link. He offered, repeatedly, and it's been done before. Then they can decide what they want to do next, and we can hear some charges and legal arguments.
Since when does a prosecutor go to a foreign country to interview someone? Either they have enough to ask for an extradition, then they ask for an extradition, or they don't have enough, in which case an interview would be pointless.
They responded to a search warrant. The only thing that makes this search warrant different from other search warrants is that for some reason you think that emails of the accused person shouldn't be searched in this case. Your justification seems to be purely political. I don't think Google should fight specific search warrants on purely political reasons, Google itself might not have your political views and might not want to fight these search warrants at all, and last Google doesn't actually have any standing to fight these warrants. If there is something wrong with the search warrants, someone's lawyers will bring it up in court.
Insurance companies just need to start dropping anyone who drives for Uber and create a new category of insurance for them (which would most likely be the most expensive bracket there is, considering they're driving around customers professionally all day long with no special training whatsoever).
They have that. It's called "commercial insurance". Same as other taxi drivers. The reason Uber doesn't like this is that they are not competitive when they have to compete on even terms.
"Innocent until proven guilty" used to be an essential part of English/American culture, not just the legal system.
I always assume you are innocent. I just don't trust you. For the drug testing, where it is important, if you refuse a test I will always assume that you are innocent, but unemployed.
Consider that China is legally allowed to do security audits or "security audits" on any open source system. So what would Apple have to be afraid of that Linux or OpenSSL just as examples don't have to be afraid of?
"Security Audits" - In other words, making sure these governments have a way to access secure information stored on confiscated iPhones from activists, dissidents, journalists, and other troublemakers.
How would a security audit achieve this? Just curious. I'm sure you know a lot more about this than I do.
"Three felonies a day" is nonsense. Thoroughly debunked on skeptics.stackexchange.
The felonies in the book are acts where for any particular random American it is possible, but highly unlikely that they will commit one in their lifetime. It is close to impossible that any American will ever do three of these felonies in one day. The claim that every American will do three of these felonies every day of their life is utterly ridiculous.
This. I've actually seen this practice in action. My division is always in the red because we do not directly make money, we build the products, services and tech that another division then sells. So we end up looked down upon as a money sink while they are heralded as the saviours.
That's a severe management problem, which is solved by internal billing. Everyone using your services should get an internal bill, which gets internally counted as your income. If your department thinks something should cost $100,000 and they only want to pay $50,000, then they should hire an outside company to do the job for $50,000 (either you are inefficient, or they are living in a dreamworld). Obviously with heads rolling if you offered to do the work for $100,000, and they found someone who offered it for $50,000 and ended up costing $200,000.
Diversity is fine. Let people do whatever the hell they want to do. But shut the fuck up about it already. Constantly harping on the same shit over and over again. Just like a woman, my god...
On MacRumors, it was reported that Apple dedicated their homepage to Martin Luther King, Jr. a few days ago. The same kind of outrage as yours was the result.
If you don't want to hear about it, surely the title of this thread was a giveaway that should have stopped you from reading it, if that is what you wanted. But that's not what you want. You want people to "shut the fuck up" about a subject that is interesting and important to many people. You must really feel threatened by the idea that women could be part of a software development project.
Don't forget she was also caught retweeting offers from GNAA trolls to pay for fake harassment tweets directed against her.
Strange sentence. What do you mean by "caught"? If someone offers to pay for harrassment tweets, that's highly damning and any victim of this would make it known as widely as possible. I would have said "She cleverly fought back against the GNAA trolls by retweeting their offers to pay for fake harrassment tweets directed against her".
No, that's been researched. GG is mostly left of center. This is authoritarian left (SJWs like Quinn, Alexander, Grayson, McIntosh, Chu, etc) vs libertarian left (GG).
Could you give some names of the libertarian left, with addresses, information about their families etc. so they can be attacked same as the authoritarian left? Information wants to be free.
I don't know what kind of bizarro legal system you live under, but it's not one I've ever heard of. Whether something is considered theft/larceny/stealing doesn't hinge on whether the property is eventually recovered. But this is veering offtopic, and I've already been modded down for that once in this thread, so good night.
In Germany, when the very first "theft" of electricity happened (connecting to the neighbour's power cable and having him pay for the electricity bill), it turned out that this was according to the existing laws no theft, and a new law was added. Fraud laws had to be changed because of computer fraud; before that fraud had the legal requirement that a _person_ had to be given false information and with careful construction a computer could be defrauded without giving false information to any person.
So they have a secret capability to spy on North Korea, and they tell us because Sony got hacked? So now North Korea knows about it and probably will do something about it? That sounds an incredibly stupid action to me.
In WWII, when the Brits cracked German encryption, the went to incredible lengths to create believable stories how they found secret German operations that they discovered through decrypted Enigma messages.
That's the choice when you buy a laptop: You can buy cheap and get rubbish or buy expensive and get quality. (But my mother always said: We are poor, we cannot afford cheap things. ).
Now for most users there is the big difference between running Windows or running MacOS X. That obviously makes a big difference. But we are talking here about people who are going to run Linux anyway. That means an important question is Linux compatibility, which I didn't see discussed at all.
The important things to answer: How well does the trackpad work under Linux (because that's a major plus of a Mac compared to any Windows laptop), is the retina display supported well, are external monitors supported well, is energy saving supported well.
There is good evidence that Apple cannot read any messages sent through iMessage with its current software. So what our politicians would want is that Apple would change their software, so that if there is evidence that a strongly suspected terrorist uses iMessage, then someone can ask Apple to give them a key that gives the government access to that terrorists iMessage account and read all his messages.
But if Apple can give some key to the government that gives the government the capability of reading one specific terrorist's iMessages, then Apple must have the capability of getting a key for any user and read that user's messages. So Apple can then read anyone's messages, which means any other government agency can issue warrants for anybody's iMessages. So no matter whether the government claims this would only affect suspected terrorists, it affects anyone.
Moreover, _someone_ at Apple would be handling these requests. That employee could be bribed, or tricked, or their computer hacked, for other governements or criminals to get access to anyone's iMessages. Including iMessages sent by military, diplomats, polticians and so on. So this thing would risk the safety of anyone. How likely is it that terrorists would find a way to exploit such a weakness to help them with their terrorist plots?
I dont like the scumbags that shoot up chocolate shops and newspaper offices or crash airplanes into buildings or blow up nightclubs but I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free than to see a single innocent person have their privacy, security, civil liberties or constitutional rights violated.
Actually, if 1000 terrorists were sent to prison at the cost of one single innocent person having their rights violated, I'd be all for it.
But what our politicians want won't catch a dozen terrorists and will violate the rights of 100s of millions, so the situation is a bit different.
You actually have no idea whether your communications are of interest to the Government.
Your communication might also be of interest if you have a date with the ex-partner of someone whose job is spying on people, or if you are a good looking man / woman who likes to send nude pictures of themselves, and many other reasons.
Translation: there are already companies in Silicon Valley ready, willing, and able to fulfiy this mandate.
Your translation is wrong. The correct translation is "I except the Silicon Valley companies to support us, otherwise we will do our best to denounce them as unpatriotic".
An 18-year old non-violent offender should get an option to demonstrate the three R's of the criminal defense system. Remorse, recant, restitution.
It seems that he made calls to the US police to get SWAT teams to someone's house. That is most definitely not "non-violent". It's something that can easily get someone killed, and that is very likely to inflict violence on someone, and that violence or killing is the desired effect.
At nine, I drove by bicycle to the neighbouring village to and from school, about three miles away or so. Not too much road traffic, but still some.
At twelve I went on a 14 day holiday on my own. There were some adults present that my mother knew, but not many.
Looks like in some countries today they would have removed me from my family and put in a home. In which case I promise I would have found the people responsible and would have punished them.
The real problem is that these people managed to collect lots of weapons. How did they get these weapons? Why is nobody asking how they got their weapons? What do you think would happen if France had laws so that the manufacturer of a weapon used in a terrorist attack gets a _massive_ fine? And by _massive_ I mean a fine that will badly hurt a major arms manufacturer? Plus severe punishment for anyone trying to smuggle illegal guns in the country, or selling illegal guns? That would be something that should stop that kind of terrorism, while not affecting any ordinary citizen.
The problem isn't stopping terrorists. The problem is stopping terrorists without turning the country into a police state.
I might for example have my MacBook with me, _and_ have a tiny Apple TV to plug into the hotel TV, and play movies from my computer via an ad-hoc network (nothing going to the outside, just WiFi between Mac and Apple TV). Apparently they would be blocking that.
Slashdot Mirror
In the UK, you should have kept your invoice when you bought the game on holiday, and then you can go to a small claims court and ask them for damages. Obviously you can't complain to the retailer who may be thousands of miles away.
However, on my last holiday I saw fake products in such huge amounts, you might have a hard time convincing anyone that your product was an original and not a fake.
By all means lets have an investigation. The Swedish authorities want to question him. They can do that in the UK, or by video link. He offered, repeatedly, and it's been done before. Then they can decide what they want to do next, and we can hear some charges and legal arguments.
Since when does a prosecutor go to a foreign country to interview someone? Either they have enough to ask for an extradition, then they ask for an extradition, or they don't have enough, in which case an interview would be pointless.
You mean they were just following orders?
They responded to a search warrant. The only thing that makes this search warrant different from other search warrants is that for some reason you think that emails of the accused person shouldn't be searched in this case. Your justification seems to be purely political. I don't think Google should fight specific search warrants on purely political reasons, Google itself might not have your political views and might not want to fight these search warrants at all, and last Google doesn't actually have any standing to fight these warrants. If there is something wrong with the search warrants, someone's lawyers will bring it up in court.
Insurance companies just need to start dropping anyone who drives for Uber and create a new category of insurance for them (which would most likely be the most expensive bracket there is, considering they're driving around customers professionally all day long with no special training whatsoever).
They have that. It's called "commercial insurance". Same as other taxi drivers. The reason Uber doesn't like this is that they are not competitive when they have to compete on even terms.
"Innocent until proven guilty" used to be an essential part of English/American culture, not just the legal system.
I always assume you are innocent. I just don't trust you. For the drug testing, where it is important, if you refuse a test I will always assume that you are innocent, but unemployed.
Consider that China is legally allowed to do security audits or "security audits" on any open source system. So what would Apple have to be afraid of that Linux or OpenSSL just as examples don't have to be afraid of?
I believe the GP was suggesting that the phrase "security audit" was being used in a euphemistic manner.
And in what alternate universe would Apple agree to a euphemistic security audit?
"Security Audits" - In other words, making sure these governments have a way to access secure information stored on confiscated iPhones from activists, dissidents, journalists, and other troublemakers.
How would a security audit achieve this? Just curious. I'm sure you know a lot more about this than I do.
"Three felonies a day" is nonsense. Thoroughly debunked on skeptics.stackexchange.
The felonies in the book are acts where for any particular random American it is possible, but highly unlikely that they will commit one in their lifetime. It is close to impossible that any American will ever do three of these felonies in one day. The claim that every American will do three of these felonies every day of their life is utterly ridiculous.
This. I've actually seen this practice in action. My division is always in the red because we do not directly make money, we build the products, services and tech that another division then sells. So we end up looked down upon as a money sink while they are heralded as the saviours.
That's a severe management problem, which is solved by internal billing. Everyone using your services should get an internal bill, which gets internally counted as your income. If your department thinks something should cost $100,000 and they only want to pay $50,000, then they should hire an outside company to do the job for $50,000 (either you are inefficient, or they are living in a dreamworld). Obviously with heads rolling if you offered to do the work for $100,000, and they found someone who offered it for $50,000 and ended up costing $200,000.
Diversity is fine. Let people do whatever the hell they want to do. But shut the fuck up about it already. Constantly harping on the same shit over and over again. Just like a woman, my god...
On MacRumors, it was reported that Apple dedicated their homepage to Martin Luther King, Jr. a few days ago. The same kind of outrage as yours was the result.
If you don't want to hear about it, surely the title of this thread was a giveaway that should have stopped you from reading it, if that is what you wanted. But that's not what you want. You want people to "shut the fuck up" about a subject that is interesting and important to many people. You must really feel threatened by the idea that women could be part of a software development project.
Don't forget she was also caught retweeting offers from GNAA trolls to pay for fake harassment tweets directed against her.
Strange sentence. What do you mean by "caught"? If someone offers to pay for harrassment tweets, that's highly damning and any victim of this would make it known as widely as possible. I would have said "She cleverly fought back against the GNAA trolls by retweeting their offers to pay for fake harrassment tweets directed against her".
No, that's been researched. GG is mostly left of center. This is authoritarian left (SJWs like Quinn, Alexander, Grayson, McIntosh, Chu, etc) vs libertarian left (GG).
Could you give some names of the libertarian left, with addresses, information about their families etc. so they can be attacked same as the authoritarian left? Information wants to be free.
I don't know what kind of bizarro legal system you live under, but it's not one I've ever heard of. Whether something is considered theft/larceny/stealing doesn't hinge on whether the property is eventually recovered. But this is veering offtopic, and I've already been modded down for that once in this thread, so good night.
In Germany, when the very first "theft" of electricity happened (connecting to the neighbour's power cable and having him pay for the electricity bill), it turned out that this was according to the existing laws no theft, and a new law was added. Fraud laws had to be changed because of computer fraud; before that fraud had the legal requirement that a _person_ had to be given false information and with careful construction a computer could be defrauded without giving false information to any person.
So they have a secret capability to spy on North Korea, and they tell us because Sony got hacked? So now North Korea knows about it and probably will do something about it? That sounds an incredibly stupid action to me.
In WWII, when the Brits cracked German encryption, the went to incredible lengths to create believable stories how they found secret German operations that they discovered through decrypted Enigma messages.
That's the choice when you buy a laptop: You can buy cheap and get rubbish or buy expensive and get quality. (But my mother always said: We are poor, we cannot afford cheap things. ).
Now for most users there is the big difference between running Windows or running MacOS X. That obviously makes a big difference. But we are talking here about people who are going to run Linux anyway. That means an important question is Linux compatibility, which I didn't see discussed at all.
The important things to answer: How well does the trackpad work under Linux (because that's a major plus of a Mac compared to any Windows laptop), is the retina display supported well, are external monitors supported well, is energy saving supported well.
There is good evidence that Apple cannot read any messages sent through iMessage with its current software. So what our politicians would want is that Apple would change their software, so that if there is evidence that a strongly suspected terrorist uses iMessage, then someone can ask Apple to give them a key that gives the government access to that terrorists iMessage account and read all his messages.
But if Apple can give some key to the government that gives the government the capability of reading one specific terrorist's iMessages, then Apple must have the capability of getting a key for any user and read that user's messages. So Apple can then read anyone's messages, which means any other government agency can issue warrants for anybody's iMessages. So no matter whether the government claims this would only affect suspected terrorists, it affects anyone.
Moreover, _someone_ at Apple would be handling these requests. That employee could be bribed, or tricked, or their computer hacked, for other governements or criminals to get access to anyone's iMessages. Including iMessages sent by military, diplomats, polticians and so on. So this thing would risk the safety of anyone. How likely is it that terrorists would find a way to exploit such a weakness to help them with their terrorist plots?
I dont like the scumbags that shoot up chocolate shops and newspaper offices or crash airplanes into buildings or blow up nightclubs but I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free than to see a single innocent person have their privacy, security, civil liberties or constitutional rights violated.
Actually, if 1000 terrorists were sent to prison at the cost of one single innocent person having their rights violated, I'd be all for it.
But what our politicians want won't catch a dozen terrorists and will violate the rights of 100s of millions, so the situation is a bit different.
You actually have no idea whether your communications are of interest to the Government.
Your communication might also be of interest if you have a date with the ex-partner of someone whose job is spying on people, or if you are a good looking man / woman who likes to send nude pictures of themselves, and many other reasons.
Translation: there are already companies in Silicon Valley ready, willing, and able to fulfiy this mandate.
Your translation is wrong. The correct translation is "I except the Silicon Valley companies to support us, otherwise we will do our best to denounce them as unpatriotic".
Swatting is attempted murder.
That, and swatting from the UK to the USA could get you extradited. Actually, I think it should get you extradited.
An 18-year old non-violent offender should get an option to demonstrate the three R's of the criminal defense system. Remorse, recant, restitution.
It seems that he made calls to the US police to get SWAT teams to someone's house. That is most definitely not "non-violent". It's something that can easily get someone killed, and that is very likely to inflict violence on someone, and that violence or killing is the desired effect.
At nine, I drove by bicycle to the neighbouring village to and from school, about three miles away or so. Not too much road traffic, but still some.
At twelve I went on a 14 day holiday on my own. There were some adults present that my mother knew, but not many.
Looks like in some countries today they would have removed me from my family and put in a home. In which case I promise I would have found the people responsible and would have punished them.
The real problem is that these people managed to collect lots of weapons. How did they get these weapons? Why is nobody asking how they got their weapons? What do you think would happen if France had laws so that the manufacturer of a weapon used in a terrorist attack gets a _massive_ fine? And by _massive_ I mean a fine that will badly hurt a major arms manufacturer? Plus severe punishment for anyone trying to smuggle illegal guns in the country, or selling illegal guns? That would be something that should stop that kind of terrorism, while not affecting any ordinary citizen.
The problem isn't stopping terrorists. The problem is stopping terrorists without turning the country into a police state.
I might for example have my MacBook with me, _and_ have a tiny Apple TV to plug into the hotel TV, and play movies from my computer via an ad-hoc network (nothing going to the outside, just WiFi between Mac and Apple TV). Apparently they would be blocking that.