Big difference iBeacon needs to be enabled per app, the user has control! Here the user was scanned without their consent, this new privacy feature is awesome.
It's better than that. For every set of iBeacons, you have to specifically download, install and run an app that reacts to that iBeacon, or nothing will happen at all. The beacons themselves have no hardware to receive any data from the device. On stackoverflow.com you will find people asking all the time how to receive data from _any_ beacon, and are surprised when they are told there is no API for that.
No, it still provides your MAC to the network. Doing otherwise would break things - static DHCP reservations for one. It means the iPhone won't provide its MAC address *until* it finds a recognised network to connect to - it won't be broadcasting it constantly while you are out traveling or shopping.
Which means that if you walk into a shopping centre, the hundred or so WiFi points that you are _not_ using don't get your MAC, only the one that you are actually using.
I'm sure Apple will turn your information into profit if it can, don't get me wrong. But it's not their primary business model. As long as the phone costs a lot of money, you can count on them being less interested in what you have to offer after the sale.
In other words, you are Apple's customer. You are Google's product.
But being recorded by the public - sorry, sometimes the police have to step in and say "go away". Whether to calm a riot and disperse you (notice one of these phrases is not "stop filming" but "go away"). Or to stop someone finding out their son's dead by some moron on YouTube uploading his murder.
The first one makes sense.
For the second one: If I'm filming a murder, and police is there, and they stop me filming the murder, then the police officers should be put to jail for bothering with me filming instead of trying to stop the murder. On the other hand, if I film a dead body _after_ the murder happened, and upload it, that's surely not a nice thing to do, but could you explain why the police should stop me doing it?
However, carving out that bit of scope was deliberate. Even though it was not part of the case they explicitly mentioned that it would not be covered, so implicitly they are indeed saying that if an officer had asked her to stop it would not be a 1st amendment violation.
That's absolutely not how courts work. They take all the circumstances of the case, to make the case as easy as possible to decide. The police didn't tell her to stop filming but just arrested her. That's the facts. That's what the court decision was about. Judges do _not_ make decisions about things that didn't happen. Police didn't tell her to stop filming. Since that is the fact, the court is _not_ going to say what would have happened if they had told her to stop.
Now common sense is that if you are doing something that you are not supposed to do, then usually the police can arrest you without telling you to stop first. If you beat up someone, they are not going to tell you to stop. And if they arrest you without telling you to stop, you won't get any compensation for that. So I would imagine that they didn't actually have the right to ask her to stop. And if they told her to stop filming without having the right to do so, an arrest would likely be just as illegal.
Not really. There's a judge who wants to see these papers. US marshals took the papers, claiming they own them. That's of course totally irrelevant - judges see papers that are _owned_ by someone all the time. So all the judge needs to do is sent out some cops with a warrant to get the papers. If they can't get them because some other cops refuse to hand them over, arrest the other cops. If they refuse to let themselves be arrested, arrest them for resisting arrest. If that doesn't work, send out more cops. That's the same as if you wanted to search the home of well-armed drug dealers: You just sent enough cops to search the home.
What if someone cuts the water or power to the hospitol and mixes suger in the gas of the generator? There is no reason this should specifically include computers and not other attacks.
The difference between this and computer hacking is that you have to be physically present. You see a hospital. Your mind realises there is a hospital with people. The hacker doesn't see a hospital, he sees a keyboard and a screen. For some low lives there is no connection between their actions and real people. It's like a violent computer game.
The first part 'loss of life' should already be covered by simply applying murder and/or manslaughter charges. There is no reason to invent a new law for this, only because it's done with a computer.
That's the problem. In UK law, it is murder if you intended to kill or cause serious injury to someone, and someone dies as a result (may be another person). If some bloody idiot hacks into a hospital's computer system "for the lulu" (Safari replaces a z with an u, and I find it actually more appropriate that way), and as a result people die without any intent to cause death, then apparently this isn't murder currently.
If I was a bad person, $10,000 would be enough to get me thinking, "Okay, now, how can I convincingly frame someone I don't like for this?"
Not sure how it works in the USA. In the UK, if there's one thing that both police and judges hate, is people interfering with the law. People go to jail for giving false evidence to avoid getting a speeding ticket.
And I think if you were a bad person, you'd fall into the category "bad and stupid" person. Framing someone is difficult. So your plan is to commit a crime, then create false evidence to prove someone else did it. Big mistake is that you plan to commit a crime while being known to the police. And most likely you are hugely overestimating your abilities.
Nonsense. That is what assertions are for. Assertions are not meant to be caught, and should be used to throw an (uncaught) exception upon detection of a programming error, i.e., an internal consistency check. Regular exceptions, on the other hand, are for handling exceptional cases encountered in the process of execution (such as file-not-found or unsupported-format).
That's typically how you identify Java and C# programmers who try to write Objective-C code. They throw and catch exceptions all over the place instead of using NSError**.
Ref counting can be extremely expensive in multi-threaded programs because refcount incs/decs must always be atomic, and they happen a lot. You really don't want to be doing a bus assert every few method calls if you care about speed.
Well, Apple has a few years experience with reference counting. An essential part of ARC is to optimise reference counting away when its not needed. And new Intel processors have added some tricks so that an atomic increment/decrement doesn't actually need any bus access when it isn't contented.
The language doesn't have exceptions.
It has strong emphasis on assertions though, so feel free to use those as a substitute.
In Objective-C, you should only throw exceptions on programming errors. And there's no need to catch them, because you ought to fix the code. Swift just makes it a bit stronger. No exceptions.
To be honest, while this snippet is a few lines shorter, it's arguably more complicated than the corresponding Obj-C. It drops returning self in the init, and drops a few lines that would have had to go in to the class definition, but you gain a few unsightly keywords like "override", having to add the keyword "func" to every function, and you gain some more syntactical mess like "->".
"override" is a _massive_ improvement. It means you cannot override a superclass method by accident. And you can't try to override a non-existing superclass method by accident.
Not voluntarily unless required by law? Why do companies release statements like this? It just makes them seem more guilty. Better not to say anything.
Only to someone whose mind is full with conspiracy theories. What they said is exactly what I would have expected them to do if they are a decent and law abiding company that values their customers, and therefore exactly what I expected them to say.
If you add that UPS as a company is not aware of receiving any court orders or subpoenas from the NSA, this means that either the NSA didn't get access to any packages, or they did so by bribing people or talking naive employees giving them illegal access to such packages.
That link shows their website, where they tell us that if the sender is about to send packet 83, and figures out it didn't get an acknowledgement for packet 22, it then has to resend packets 22 to 82. Which seems an entirely stupid thing to do, and an obvious improvement would be to resend only the packets that are actually lost.
Guess what: According to the Wikipedia article about TCP, that's what the "selective acknowledgment" (SACK) option defined in RFC 2018 does. So _poof_ goes the benefit of this scheme, which was based on an incorrect representation of TCP/IP.
On the other hand, my TV receives a purely digital signal with no way to ask for re-transmission of lost data and works just fine with it. There is a variant of h.264 specicially for streaming connections without retransmission, and that together with UDP instead of TCP/IP would solve the problem just fine. If it was a problem.
and i bet there was a clause in the original license saying they can change it any time they want
How would that be possible? Only the copyright holder can change the license under which their copyrighted works can be used. Now this site seems to have added terms to their site that claim "by using our site, you give up any restriction that your content cannot be used for commercial uses". That has at least big, big problems. First obviously copyrighted works by people using the site at some point in the past, but not anymore. Using such content is obvious copyright infringement since the copyright holder never waived their rights. Second, adding terms that restrict the rights of third parties. If _my_ content is on that site, then I most certainly did not agree that you can require _others_ who look at _my_ content to waive their rights. Third, copyright has strong legal protection. There can be statutory damages up to $150,000 per copied work.
Oh, by all means, let's have a crying six year old be the sole occupant of a car when it gets in an accident...
Frankly, a crying six year old being the sole occupant of a car involved in an accident is a lot better then a six year old plus a badly injured parent.
The statement is that FBI knocked on his door and asked him to let them install "survellance equipment" on his servers. What "surveillance equipment" would that be? Just curious - what kind of equipment could these guys carry with them, that could be installed and used for surveillance?
The third amendment forbids quartering of troops in peacetime without consent. I'd argue that the there is no distinction between monitoring equipment and troops.
You could argue that. If there is a judge involved, he wouldn't be blinded by the splendour of your argument. He would conclude that you are an obnoxious little twat making fun of him and the court, and treat you accordingly. I'm not saying that's what you are, but that's what the judge would assume. He would therefore decide against you whenever there is any leeway in a decision.
Of course current and contemplated robots can't make decisions about whether or not to sacrifice their owner to save two strangers. That sort of decision making depends on an independent ability to think and weigh alternatives morally.
You don't really need ability to think and to weight anything in any moral way. I suppose that car manufacturers would be required by law which preferences to follow. I _think_ the rules will be to give precedence to everyone on the street who followed the rules to avoid _innocent_ victims.
But then, the example of a car with five passengers stuck on a railway track and another car with two passengers behind it - how often does that happen? And the doors on the first car don't unlock, right, because otherwise the five passengers would just get out and run?
Slashdot Mirror
Big difference iBeacon needs to be enabled per app, the user has control! Here the user was scanned without their consent, this new privacy feature is awesome.
It's better than that. For every set of iBeacons, you have to specifically download, install and run an app that reacts to that iBeacon, or nothing will happen at all. The beacons themselves have no hardware to receive any data from the device. On stackoverflow.com you will find people asking all the time how to receive data from _any_ beacon, and are surprised when they are told there is no API for that.
No, it still provides your MAC to the network. Doing otherwise would break things - static DHCP reservations for one. It means the iPhone won't provide its MAC address *until* it finds a recognised network to connect to - it won't be broadcasting it constantly while you are out traveling or shopping.
Which means that if you walk into a shopping centre, the hundred or so WiFi points that you are _not_ using don't get your MAC, only the one that you are actually using.
I'm sure Apple will turn your information into profit if it can, don't get me wrong. But it's not their primary business model. As long as the phone costs a lot of money, you can count on them being less interested in what you have to offer after the sale.
In other words, you are Apple's customer. You are Google's product.
In big letters: "This is not an iFone".
"We don't sell the iFone".
and so on.
But being recorded by the public - sorry, sometimes the police have to step in and say "go away". Whether to calm a riot and disperse you (notice one of these phrases is not "stop filming" but "go away"). Or to stop someone finding out their son's dead by some moron on YouTube uploading his murder.
The first one makes sense.
For the second one: If I'm filming a murder, and police is there, and they stop me filming the murder, then the police officers should be put to jail for bothering with me filming instead of trying to stop the murder. On the other hand, if I film a dead body _after_ the murder happened, and upload it, that's surely not a nice thing to do, but could you explain why the police should stop me doing it?
However, carving out that bit of scope was deliberate. Even though it was not part of the case they explicitly mentioned that it would not be covered, so implicitly they are indeed saying that if an officer had asked her to stop it would not be a 1st amendment violation.
That's absolutely not how courts work. They take all the circumstances of the case, to make the case as easy as possible to decide. The police didn't tell her to stop filming but just arrested her. That's the facts. That's what the court decision was about. Judges do _not_ make decisions about things that didn't happen. Police didn't tell her to stop filming. Since that is the fact, the court is _not_ going to say what would have happened if they had told her to stop.
Now common sense is that if you are doing something that you are not supposed to do, then usually the police can arrest you without telling you to stop first. If you beat up someone, they are not going to tell you to stop. And if they arrest you without telling you to stop, you won't get any compensation for that. So I would imagine that they didn't actually have the right to ask her to stop. And if they told her to stop filming without having the right to do so, an arrest would likely be just as illegal.
We don't need a revolution.
Not really. There's a judge who wants to see these papers. US marshals took the papers, claiming they own them. That's of course totally irrelevant - judges see papers that are _owned_ by someone all the time. So all the judge needs to do is sent out some cops with a warrant to get the papers. If they can't get them because some other cops refuse to hand them over, arrest the other cops. If they refuse to let themselves be arrested, arrest them for resisting arrest. If that doesn't work, send out more cops. That's the same as if you wanted to search the home of well-armed drug dealers: You just sent enough cops to search the home.
What if someone cuts the water or power to the hospitol and mixes suger in the gas of the generator? There is no reason this should specifically include computers and not other attacks.
The difference between this and computer hacking is that you have to be physically present. You see a hospital. Your mind realises there is a hospital with people. The hacker doesn't see a hospital, he sees a keyboard and a screen. For some low lives there is no connection between their actions and real people. It's like a violent computer game.
The first part 'loss of life' should already be covered by simply applying murder and/or manslaughter charges. There is no reason to invent a new law for this, only because it's done with a computer.
That's the problem. In UK law, it is murder if you intended to kill or cause serious injury to someone, and someone dies as a result (may be another person). If some bloody idiot hacks into a hospital's computer system "for the lulu" (Safari replaces a z with an u, and I find it actually more appropriate that way), and as a result people die without any intent to cause death, then apparently this isn't murder currently.
The fall guy is supposed to get caught for point a laser at a plane. The person collecting the reward not supposed to get caught for fraud.
It wouldn't be fraud. It would be conspiracy to point a laser etc. etc. so you would get convicted just as the person who actually did it.
If I was a bad person, $10,000 would be enough to get me thinking, "Okay, now, how can I convincingly frame someone I don't like for this?"
Not sure how it works in the USA. In the UK, if there's one thing that both police and judges hate, is people interfering with the law. People go to jail for giving false evidence to avoid getting a speeding ticket.
And I think if you were a bad person, you'd fall into the category "bad and stupid" person. Framing someone is difficult. So your plan is to commit a crime, then create false evidence to prove someone else did it. Big mistake is that you plan to commit a crime while being known to the police. And most likely you are hugely overestimating your abilities.
Nonsense. That is what assertions are for. Assertions are not meant to be caught, and should be used to throw an (uncaught) exception upon detection of a programming error, i.e., an internal consistency check. Regular exceptions, on the other hand, are for handling exceptional cases encountered in the process of execution (such as file-not-found or unsupported-format).
That's typically how you identify Java and C# programmers who try to write Objective-C code. They throw and catch exceptions all over the place instead of using NSError**.
Ref counting can be extremely expensive in multi-threaded programs because refcount incs/decs must always be atomic, and they happen a lot. You really don't want to be doing a bus assert every few method calls if you care about speed.
Well, Apple has a few years experience with reference counting. An essential part of ARC is to optimise reference counting away when its not needed. And new Intel processors have added some tricks so that an atomic increment/decrement doesn't actually need any bus access when it isn't contented.
The language doesn't have exceptions.
It has strong emphasis on assertions though, so feel free to use those as a substitute.
In Objective-C, you should only throw exceptions on programming errors. And there's no need to catch them, because you ought to fix the code. Swift just makes it a bit stronger. No exceptions.
To be honest, while this snippet is a few lines shorter, it's arguably more complicated than the corresponding Obj-C. It drops returning self in the init, and drops a few lines that would have had to go in to the class definition, but you gain a few unsightly keywords like "override", having to add the keyword "func" to every function, and you gain some more syntactical mess like "->".
"override" is a _massive_ improvement. It means you cannot override a superclass method by accident. And you can't try to override a non-existing superclass method by accident.
Not voluntarily unless required by law? Why do companies release statements like this? It just makes them seem more guilty. Better not to say anything.
Only to someone whose mind is full with conspiracy theories. What they said is exactly what I would have expected them to do if they are a decent and law abiding company that values their customers, and therefore exactly what I expected them to say.
If you add that UPS as a company is not aware of receiving any court orders or subpoenas from the NSA, this means that either the NSA didn't get access to any packages, or they did so by bribing people or talking naive employees giving them illegal access to such packages.
That link shows their website, where they tell us that if the sender is about to send packet 83, and figures out it didn't get an acknowledgement for packet 22, it then has to resend packets 22 to 82. Which seems an entirely stupid thing to do, and an obvious improvement would be to resend only the packets that are actually lost.
Guess what: According to the Wikipedia article about TCP, that's what the "selective acknowledgment" (SACK) option defined in RFC 2018 does. So _poof_ goes the benefit of this scheme, which was based on an incorrect representation of TCP/IP.
On the other hand, my TV receives a purely digital signal with no way to ask for re-transmission of lost data and works just fine with it. There is a variant of h.264 specicially for streaming connections without retransmission, and that together with UDP instead of TCP/IP would solve the problem just fine. If it was a problem.
and i bet there was a clause in the original license saying they can change it any time they want
How would that be possible? Only the copyright holder can change the license under which their copyrighted works can be used. Now this site seems to have added terms to their site that claim "by using our site, you give up any restriction that your content cannot be used for commercial uses". That has at least big, big problems. First obviously copyrighted works by people using the site at some point in the past, but not anymore. Using such content is obvious copyright infringement since the copyright holder never waived their rights. Second, adding terms that restrict the rights of third parties. If _my_ content is on that site, then I most certainly did not agree that you can require _others_ who look at _my_ content to waive their rights. Third, copyright has strong legal protection. There can be statutory damages up to $150,000 per copied work.
Oh, by all means, let's have a crying six year old be the sole occupant of a car when it gets in an accident...
Frankly, a crying six year old being the sole occupant of a car involved in an accident is a lot better then a six year old plus a badly injured parent.
Methinks you meant that the other way around. I'd expect a physical to cost more than a virtual. On account of um.. paper. :)
Which is a tiny percentage of the total cost. Printing is cheap.
have your publisher stop selling through Amazon entirely. Convince other publishers to do the same.
And see what US courts will do to you.
The statement is that FBI knocked on his door and asked him to let them install "survellance equipment" on his servers. What "surveillance equipment" would that be? Just curious - what kind of equipment could these guys carry with them, that could be installed and used for surveillance?
The third amendment forbids quartering of troops in peacetime without consent. I'd argue that the there is no distinction between monitoring equipment and troops.
You could argue that. If there is a judge involved, he wouldn't be blinded by the splendour of your argument. He would conclude that you are an obnoxious little twat making fun of him and the court, and treat you accordingly. I'm not saying that's what you are, but that's what the judge would assume. He would therefore decide against you whenever there is any leeway in a decision.
Of course current and contemplated robots can't make decisions about whether or not to sacrifice their owner to save two strangers. That sort of decision making depends on an independent ability to think and weigh alternatives morally.
You don't really need ability to think and to weight anything in any moral way. I suppose that car manufacturers would be required by law which preferences to follow. I _think_ the rules will be to give precedence to everyone on the street who followed the rules to avoid _innocent_ victims.
But then, the example of a car with five passengers stuck on a railway track and another car with two passengers behind it - how often does that happen? And the doors on the first car don't unlock, right, because otherwise the five passengers would just get out and run?
They want the right to carry stupid guns, and they are gracious enough to not oppose other people's right to carry smart guns. That's really nice.
However, they do oppose people's right not to be shot by a stupid gun that someone takes away from the stupid owner of said stupid gun.