I see your argument, but I'm not sure the phone company can be held liable for losses unrelated and beyond the phone services.
I mean, suppose you'd hired a locksmith to replace the lock on your car door. And he bungled it, and your car was ransacked, and its contents emptied, and then it was set on fire.
Would the locksmith be liable? or is this going to land on your regular car insurance?
I did a quick skim of what locksmith insurance coverage looks like, and it would cover damage or injury caused by the lock. (e.g. if you left an exposed edge and it cut someone, or the tock wasn't aligned properly and damaged the door itself and the door needed replacing, that would be covered. But it doesn't look like the locksmith is liable for losses due to theft if the lock is faulty. That would be your regular theft insurance.
But even, if we think a case against the locksmith is viable then suppose then that inside the glove box you had left the account information and passwords for your offshore bank accounts worth 200 million, and they get drained.
Is the locksmith really liable for that loss too? I'm not buying it.
HE UNEQUIVOCALLY CORRECTED THEM, REPEATEDLY, "IF TRUMP FIRES MUELLER IT'S ENTIRELY CONSTITUTIONAL WITH ZERO POSSIBLE LEGITIMATE LEGAL CHARGES. YOU CANNOT PROSECUTE A PRESIDENT UNDER ANY THEORY FOR EXERCISING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, AND HE'S THE HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH--THERE IS NOTHING ANYONE COULD DO ABOUT IT. AND EVERYONE ACTUALLY KNOWS THIS."
Therein lies the problem. The reason this becomes a crisis isn't because firing Mueller isn't legal, or isn't constitutional; its simpler than that.
Firing the person investigating you, as a means to undermine the investigation is morally problematic. It is the equivalent of acting to place yourself above the law, beyond the reach of justice.
The president is a lot of things, but he is not above the law. Just because he CAN doesn't mean it's ok if he DOES, or that there will not be consequences. Letting the investigation complete is the sensible thing to do. Exercising his authority to fire the special counsel investigating him raises a serious question -- should the president actually be allowed to do that?
The constitutional crisis is not that the president has broken the law, or exceeded his authority, its that he has laid bare a gap in the checks and balances that keep the government 'for the people'.
"1).. It lists facts of record, which by definition cannot be biased."
This is just naive. There are lots of ways to create bias even in a list of facts.
"5)... it has no conclusions."
The following are not facts, these are conclusions.
Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign IntelligenceSurveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.
"7) Remember, this memo did not originate with Trump. It was brought to him by members of Congress."
Yes, and what is the significance of that?
As for the rest...start here... this is pretty well written.
If the memo were actually true and correct and its conclusions were founded in law instead of wishy-thinking, then Trump should let Mueller along his merry way; and sleep easy, and then destroy the case in court -- assuming the DoJ ever decided to even lay charges.
There's no possible need to fire mueller, and violate the separation between the exective and justice departments. Fight it in court where it belongs.
The reason this whole episode is a big deal is precisely because the white house is seeking to undermine the autonomy of the justice department.
Trump isn't some poor sap whose going to get railroaded into a false confession and sent to federal prison for life. He's going to have the best representation possible; and then appeals forever, and due to the unique situation what with him being the president there's going to be enough for the supreme court to chew on to last decades. And he appointed the last supreme court justice himself. He'll die of old age long before its over.
Firing Mueller is a gross abuse and violation of the separation of powers. Even sensible republicans think interfering in the DoJ is crossing the line.
"NONE OF YOU FUCKING FAGGOTS CAN LIST ONE SINGLE SPECIFIC THING WRONG WITH THE MEMO! "
I mean, its biased, and lacks information, and omits context. It's poorly researched, and poorly sourced. Its all of 4 pages; that's absurdly thin. Then on top of that, it comes to a conclusion that has no legal basis, not even the cherry picked facts in the memo support its conclusion.
That's not why the memo is a big deal. The memo is a big deal because it represents the whitehouse's willingness to undermine its own DoJ, National Security, Intelligence oversight bodies. It's a step down the path to violating the separation of powers.
Trump needs to leave the DoJ alone. If the Mueller investigation ever reaches charges, Trump can fight them vigorously within the courts -- but he can't make this go way by the firing judges and prosecutors.
Well... perhaps he can... but if he does we now live in a tin pot dictatorship. And that's kind of a big deal.
Really looking forward to this feature in Defender. I hate that coercive messaging stuff. I can't wait for it to remove Edge and Cortana from my system.
Yeah; outlook 2016 is a big improvement over older versions... even 2013. And its an order of magnitude better than 2000. Its a lot more reliable. Its solid. And honestly it doesn't have much competition. Thunderbird is good... but IMAP is really limited compared to exchange/office365.
So for a lot of people the business case for office is simply exchange support. And for them Word and excel and powerpoint are really just along for the ride.
Beyond outlook/exchange, 64-bit support lets you deal with much bigger spreadsheets which can be a boon for accountants and some others.
There's plenty of other stuff, much of which is just incremental, some of which is a big deal for some niche or other.
For myself, I wouldnt go back to 2000/XP/2003/2007. 2010/2013 are ok but 2016 is better.
That said, if you don't NEED office and don't use exchange/office365 email then LibreOffice is pretty solid too, for a lot of use cases; and if office 365 didn't come with 5 installs, and my kids didn't get it free through their school... then I use libreoffice at lot more than i actually do.
"If the UK allows Assange to avoid justice by spending a couple of years in the Ecuadorian embassy then it would be setting a precedent that anyone (in)famous enough to get in there would be literally above the law which rules out 3)"
No, not really. If he'd fled the country instead of to the embassy. (which in many respects is the same thing), then he'd simply be beyond the reach of arrest unless and until he came back. This is pretty elementary; thousands of people have outstanding warrants who have fled the country; and unless the crime rises to a level where its worth pursuing international warrants; and he happens to hide in an extradition treaty country -- then fleeing a country and living in exile has always been something one can get away with for small crimes. The police don't normally spend a lot of time worrying about it.
Further letting assange go wouldn't set a meaningful precedent. This isn't case law; they can handle it differently if or when actual serial killer attempts to try it.
First, at best the bail bond losses in relation to someone skipping bail would be a civil suit between the parties that posted bail and Assange; its simply not a criminal matter.
Further, if this actually even an issue, the parties that posted bail, could be paid off by Wikileaks, or Ecuador. Both of whom are paying far more than that for his legal representation, or for his accomodations (respectively).
But at the same time it is a bit ridiculous. Legally the magnitude of his crime is skipping bail for an arrest for a crime in another country that has been dropped.
Why are they still maintaining a round the clock covert monitoring of his actions so they can arrest him the moment he steps out of the embassy? Lots of people skip bail. Their's a whole industry of 'bounty hunters' to round them up. And the vast majority of THOSE bail jumpers have been convicted or are still wanted for actual crimes against citizens in the country in question. Where is the multi-year multi-million dollar operation to find them and bring them in?
Yes, Assange is guilty of skipping bail. But he is clearly still being singled out in a way that defies all proportion and sense. If the Ecuadorian embassy wanted to transport 50 other bail jumpers out of the country on a diplomatic flight, the UK government wouldn't even so much as bat an eye... good riddance they'd say.
Years under effective house arrest, and then effective deportation, with an automatic arrest if he ever comes back... isn't that 'good enough' justice for the harm to Britain and British citizens by his skipping bail for an international warrant for a crime that was dropped?
I was exaggerating slightly. I can answer a call, i can take a picture (but cant look at the gallery). I can call 911. I can see the time. So I can do a few things without unlocking, and that's fine.
But the point was that there's a bunch of things I want to be able to do with a simple lock; because I want it to be convenient. And there's a few tings I want to do with a hard lock.
Right now, I can either put everything behind a hard lock, or everything behind an easy lock. I choose an easy phrase, because a hard phrase would make the phone entirely worthless; but that decision means I avoid putting important things on it, because the easy lock isn't sufficient to protect them.
First WhatsApps is owned by facebook. I wouldn't touch that app.
Second, the only functionality I'm aware of is the ability to respond to a message via the notification screen. Ie... the only way to send a message without unlocking is to reply to one you have received first. That's hardly a solution.
If I'm mistaken and you are using different functionality, by all means, go ahead, please educate me.
Now, for my part, that's not even useful. I have it set that the notifications won't display content until the phone is unlocked, you know, because I give a shit about security; and the last thing in the world I need is for 2-factor SMS notifications to be readable by anyone with my phone, even if they can't get into it. Or email messages which might contain something confidential, etc... so no thanks.
I might be ok, with whitelisting notifications from some contacts, to show on the screen before unlocking, but definitely not for most.
What phone do you have which only offers the choice of a 4-digit lock code? Itâ(TM)s obviously not an iPhone - even the default is 6 digits, and you can choose a pass phrase thatâ(TM)s as arbitrarily hard as youâ(TM)d like.
My phone allows an arbitrarily long passphrase. That isn't the problem. However if I set one, then I have to enter it before I can send my wife a text like "I'm running late", or look up where the nearest gas station is. That makes the phone unusable to me.
So I have a short passphrase that is convenient to enter often.
But as a result of that decision, I can't keep anything important on my phone at all, because if I did the only thing that stands between the world and the important stuff is a short simple passphrase. That is unacceptable.
If my phone had multiple 'levels' then I could pick which apps / just needed the simple passphrase, and which needed the good one.
"Additionally, there are some options that let you select what TouchID can and canâ(TM)t be used to unlock"
And face-unlock. Yeah... apple *sort* of has that shit worked out... very sort of. Touchid has law enforcement issues since its less decided whether they can compel you to unlock your phone with your fingerprint, and face-unlock is even worse... plus it doesn't work with sunglasses, doesn't work with a headset with a mic and has the same law enforcement issues. I just have that stuff disabled most of the time.
This actually the biggest issue I have as well. We need to be able to easily create and manage layers of security within our phones.
I'm fine with a simple convenient pin or fingerprint to unlock my phone to place a call, check sms, get directions, use the pay parking app, etc.
But I'd like to have to enter a more secure passphrase to access work email, open documents, view pictures, etc.
And perhaps have something even above that for banking, or health records.
Having a secure passphrase to answer the phone makes the phone unusable. And having anything really important protected by a 4 digit code isn't acceptable, so i can't have anything important on my phone as a result.
Pretty much an ipad pro with a keyboard in a clamshell. Sure, that'll probably exist at some point.
Hopefully the market rejects it (along with Windows 10 S) as soundly as it rejected Windows RT.
In any case, as godawful as that stuff is; its still a proper standalone device; its not a 'dockable phone thing' that requires a phone present to be its 'brains'.
1) The aircraft has not one, but two pilots, whose mutual responsibility is to ensure at least one of them is always paying attention.
2) Those pilots are trained, retrained, and then retrained again on every aspect of the craft, including the autopilot, its features, and its limitations. When the autopilot is engaged, the pilots are not allowed to watch movies, or play super mario run on their tablets. They are being paid to do a job.
3) Every aspect of a flight plan is managed by multiple people and software to ensure the plane isn't going to be on a conflicting course with any other plane. The pilots, air traffic control etc are on top of this in a way that a car driver
4) The air is mostly empty, except for other planes that are are all as tightly monitored and managed as the one you are in. There isn't another 747 5 feet away from you driven by teenager with poor lane control. There isn't an airbus 5 feet on your right driven by a woman trying to text with her boyfriend. There isn't a jackass in an F16 tailgating you looking for a chance to pass. And there are no stopped firetrucks at 30,000 feet right in your flight path.
To compare a car's lane assist to an aircraft autopilot is to just invite ridicule. If cars were driven the aircraft are flown, then maybe a tesla autopilot would be safe and reasonable.
Let me know when you register your route with a central controlling authority before getting into your car, get authorization from said authority before any turns or route changes, when you request approval before making a lane change, before entering a round about or cloverleaf, and when you have a 2ndary driver watching the road to cover any time you might not be. Then... maybe you can say aircraft 'autopilot' is basically the same thing.
Like a new macbook pro that caters to pro users? I can dream, right?
Then the current so-called macbook and macbook pro could easily fill the niche the macbook air is leaving, since all they've done the last several years is make their 3 separate lines converge to the same thing, which is great if you want that one thing, but lousy if you want anything else.
" Or maybe they don't care about losing market-share in the laptop area because they see tablets/phones as more profitable. "
The thing about that is that destroying the ecosystem tarnishes the smartphones... once someone switches to a windows laptop the integration with their phone becomes weaker, and the whole reason for choosing iphone becomes weaker.
"(and everyone has been half expecting a decent dockable phone that runs a computer setup for a long time)"
This is an interesting concept and the technology is definitely getting there, but I'm curious to see it'll land successfully or not.
The idea of having my computer in my phone which i can use as a phone/tablet, and then i walk up to a 'dumb terminal' and plug it in, and now I have a keyboard mouse and monitor... looks great on paper, but it seems to be missing a few things.
a) How many people are going to want a dumb terminal that needs a phone plugged into it before it will work? Especially given that an actual computer that your wife or kids can use while you aren't home will actually probably be cheaper. Yes, it works for the 'businessman on the go' and 'single hipsters', but pretty much everyone else finds it simpler and more useful to just have a desktop computer where they want a desktop computer. Docks have always had a niche, but they've never really taken off.
and even bigger b)
Most regular people I know have a phone and a laptop. Gamers and real power users have a desktop, but most people I know just have laptops -- they want and need desktop applications, word, excel, quickbooks, RDP to a server a work, whatever, they want a form factor with a keyboard they can use, and a decent size screen, in a form factor they can carry easily, use in a hotel room, a classroom, or a coffee shop.
A desktop-dock system for their phone doesn't meet any of their needs. Are they going to want to carry around a 'dumb laptop' that they dongle attach their phone too when they need more than a phone/tablet? Dongles are awkward, and phablets are heavy... who is going to want to sit on the couch with a their 'dumb-laptop' with their phablet hanging off it by a usb-c cable for it to work? That'll be unbalanced an awkward at best.* Is there really much market for a laptop device with no brains that needs your phone attached for it to work? And you can't use your phone as a phone while its plugged in like this?
* another possibility is a dumb laptop you slide your phone into, almost like an old PCMCIA card -- but that's only going to work with one model phone, and only if it doesn't have a case. There's no way that's going anywhere.
The *only* good argument for such a thing ever existing is it could be less expensive than just having a proper laptop... which makes it the opposite of the market apple is interested in. Apple would rather court people who can afford a $1200 phone, and then also afford a $2500+ laptop. I can't see them getting to the dumb-terminal market when there's more profit in laptops.
The only other way this tech gets off the ground is if the connection between phatlet and dumb-laptop is wireless. That could actually work. But again, what's the advantage to that over just having an actual laptop, and using wireless sync to move everything you need between them?
And most people will find a full blown laptop more useful... they can still do things with it when there phone is off / low battery / or stolen. The laptop processing isn't burning the battery down on the phone. The laptop has more room than the phone and can pack more horsepower, r
I never said otherwise. I was only refuting the argument that the police should not be looking for buyers. I agree completely that there is no reason to batter their doors down with a ram.
I can't imagine why you couldn't *make your own replacements*, even if Nintendo ends up charging silly amounts, or discontinues the product before you are done playing with it.
And I can see the 3d-printing people having a field day with this too. And then that opens the possibility of linking it with Lego...
Slashdot Mirror
I see your argument, but I'm not sure the phone company can be held liable for losses unrelated and beyond the phone services.
I mean, suppose you'd hired a locksmith to replace the lock on your car door. And he bungled it, and your car was ransacked, and its contents emptied, and then it was set on fire.
Would the locksmith be liable? or is this going to land on your regular car insurance?
I did a quick skim of what locksmith insurance coverage looks like, and it would cover damage or injury caused by the lock. (e.g. if you left an exposed edge and it cut someone, or the tock wasn't aligned properly and damaged the door itself and the door needed replacing, that would be covered. But it doesn't look like the locksmith is liable for losses due to theft if the lock is faulty. That would be your regular theft insurance.
But even, if we think a case against the locksmith is viable then suppose then that inside the glove box you had left the account information and passwords for your offshore bank accounts worth 200 million, and they get drained.
Is the locksmith really liable for that loss too? I'm not buying it.
HE UNEQUIVOCALLY CORRECTED THEM, REPEATEDLY, "IF TRUMP FIRES MUELLER IT'S ENTIRELY CONSTITUTIONAL WITH ZERO POSSIBLE LEGITIMATE LEGAL CHARGES. YOU CANNOT PROSECUTE A PRESIDENT UNDER ANY THEORY FOR EXERCISING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, AND HE'S THE HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH--THERE IS NOTHING ANYONE COULD DO ABOUT IT. AND EVERYONE ACTUALLY KNOWS THIS."
Therein lies the problem. The reason this becomes a crisis isn't because firing Mueller isn't legal, or isn't constitutional; its simpler than that.
Firing the person investigating you, as a means to undermine the investigation is morally problematic. It is the equivalent of acting to place yourself above the law, beyond the reach of justice.
The president is a lot of things, but he is not above the law. Just because he CAN doesn't mean it's ok if he DOES, or that there will not be consequences. Letting the investigation complete is the sensible thing to do. Exercising his authority to fire the special counsel investigating him raises a serious question -- should the president actually be allowed to do that?
The constitutional crisis is not that the president has broken the law, or exceeded his authority, its that he has laid bare a gap in the checks and balances that keep the government 'for the people'.
"1) .. It lists facts of record, which by definition cannot be biased."
This is just naive. There are lots of ways to create bias even in a list of facts.
"5) ... it has no conclusions."
The following are not facts, these are conclusions.
Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign IntelligenceSurveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.
"7) Remember, this memo did not originate with Trump. It was brought to him by members of Congress."
Yes, and what is the significance of that?
As for the rest...start here... this is pretty well written.
https://www.politico.com/magaz...
No comrade. You are incorrect.
If the memo were actually true and correct and its conclusions were founded in law instead of wishy-thinking, then Trump should let Mueller along his merry way; and sleep easy, and then destroy the case in court -- assuming the DoJ ever decided to even lay charges.
There's no possible need to fire mueller, and violate the separation between the exective and justice departments. Fight it in court where it belongs.
The reason this whole episode is a big deal is precisely because the white house is seeking to undermine the autonomy of the justice department.
Trump isn't some poor sap whose going to get railroaded into a false confession and sent to federal prison for life. He's going to have the best representation possible; and then appeals forever, and due to the unique situation what with him being the president there's going to be enough for the supreme court to chew on to last decades. And he appointed the last supreme court justice himself. He'll die of old age long before its over.
Firing Mueller is a gross abuse and violation of the separation of powers. Even sensible republicans think interfering in the DoJ is crossing the line.
"NONE OF YOU FUCKING FAGGOTS CAN LIST ONE SINGLE SPECIFIC THING WRONG WITH THE MEMO! "
I mean, its biased, and lacks information, and omits context. It's poorly researched, and poorly sourced. Its all of 4 pages; that's absurdly thin. Then on top of that, it comes to a conclusion that has no legal basis, not even the cherry picked facts in the memo support its conclusion.
That's not why the memo is a big deal. The memo is a big deal because it represents the whitehouse's willingness to undermine its own DoJ, National Security, Intelligence oversight bodies. It's a step down the path to violating the separation of powers.
Trump needs to leave the DoJ alone. If the Mueller investigation ever reaches charges, Trump can fight them vigorously within the courts -- but he can't make this go way by the firing judges and prosecutors.
Well... perhaps he can... but if he does we now live in a tin pot dictatorship. And that's kind of a big deal.
"Publisher Says" ... nuff said
When court says it, or legislation saying it actually says it, then it starts to mean something.
Right now, its just horseshit. (Much like that Nunes memo.)
Dear Microsoft,
Really looking forward to this feature in Defender. I hate that coercive messaging stuff. I can't wait for it to remove Edge and Cortana from my system.
Thanks
Yeah; outlook 2016 is a big improvement over older versions... even 2013. And its an order of magnitude better than 2000. Its a lot more reliable. Its solid. And honestly it doesn't have much competition. Thunderbird is good... but IMAP is really limited compared to exchange/office365.
So for a lot of people the business case for office is simply exchange support. And for them Word and excel and powerpoint are really just along for the ride.
Beyond outlook/exchange, 64-bit support lets you deal with much bigger spreadsheets which can be a boon for accountants and some others.
There's plenty of other stuff, much of which is just incremental, some of which is a big deal for some niche or other.
For myself, I wouldnt go back to 2000/XP/2003/2007. 2010/2013 are ok but 2016 is better.
That said, if you don't NEED office and don't use exchange/office365 email then LibreOffice is pretty solid too, for a lot of use cases; and if office 365 didn't come with 5 installs, and my kids didn't get it free through their school... then I use libreoffice at lot more than i actually do.
agreed on '1)'
"If the UK allows Assange to avoid justice by spending a couple of years in the Ecuadorian embassy then it would be setting a precedent that anyone (in)famous enough to get in there would be literally above the law which rules out 3)"
No, not really. If he'd fled the country instead of to the embassy. (which in many respects is the same thing), then he'd simply be beyond the reach of arrest unless and until he came back. This is pretty elementary; thousands of people have outstanding warrants who have fled the country; and unless the crime rises to a level where its worth pursuing international warrants; and he happens to hide in an extradition treaty country -- then fleeing a country and living in exile has always been something one can get away with for small crimes. The police don't normally spend a lot of time worrying about it.
Further letting assange go wouldn't set a meaningful precedent. This isn't case law; they can handle it differently if or when actual serial killer attempts to try it.
No, that's not even slightly relevant.
First, at best the bail bond losses in relation to someone skipping bail would be a civil suit between the parties that posted bail and Assange; its simply not a criminal matter.
Further, if this actually even an issue, the parties that posted bail, could be paid off by Wikileaks, or Ecuador. Both of whom are paying far more than that for his legal representation, or for his accomodations (respectively).
Precisely correct.
But at the same time it is a bit ridiculous. Legally the magnitude of his crime is skipping bail for an arrest for a crime in another country that has been dropped.
Why are they still maintaining a round the clock covert monitoring of his actions so they can arrest him the moment he steps out of the embassy? Lots of people skip bail. Their's a whole industry of 'bounty hunters' to round them up. And the vast majority of THOSE bail jumpers have been convicted or are still wanted for actual crimes against citizens in the country in question. Where is the multi-year multi-million dollar operation to find them and bring them in?
Yes, Assange is guilty of skipping bail. But he is clearly still being singled out in a way that defies all proportion and sense. If the Ecuadorian embassy wanted to transport 50 other bail jumpers out of the country on a diplomatic flight, the UK government wouldn't even so much as bat an eye... good riddance they'd say.
Years under effective house arrest, and then effective deportation, with an automatic arrest if he ever comes back... isn't that 'good enough' justice for the harm to Britain and British citizens by his skipping bail for an international warrant for a crime that was dropped?
And doesn't accomplish anything against a crypto currency miner.
I was exaggerating slightly. I can answer a call, i can take a picture (but cant look at the gallery). I can call 911. I can see the time. So I can do a few things without unlocking, and that's fine.
But the point was that there's a bunch of things I want to be able to do with a simple lock; because I want it to be convenient. And there's a few tings I want to do with a hard lock.
Right now, I can either put everything behind a hard lock, or everything behind an easy lock. I choose an easy phrase, because a hard phrase would make the phone entirely worthless; but that decision means I avoid putting important things on it, because the easy lock isn't sufficient to protect them.
First WhatsApps is owned by facebook. I wouldn't touch that app.
Second, the only functionality I'm aware of is the ability to respond to a message via the notification screen. Ie... the only way to send a message without unlocking is to reply to one you have received first. That's hardly a solution.
If I'm mistaken and you are using different functionality, by all means, go ahead, please educate me.
Now, for my part, that's not even useful. I have it set that the notifications won't display content until the phone is unlocked, you know, because I give a shit about security; and the last thing in the world I need is for 2-factor SMS notifications to be readable by anyone with my phone, even if they can't get into it. Or email messages which might contain something confidential, etc... so no thanks.
I might be ok, with whitelisting notifications from some contacts, to show on the screen before unlocking, but definitely not for most.
What phone do you have which only offers the choice of a 4-digit lock code? Itâ(TM)s obviously not an iPhone - even the default is 6 digits, and you can choose a pass phrase thatâ(TM)s as arbitrarily hard as youâ(TM)d like.
My phone allows an arbitrarily long passphrase. That isn't the problem. However if I set one, then I have to enter it before I can send my wife a text like "I'm running late", or look up where the nearest gas station is. That makes the phone unusable to me.
So I have a short passphrase that is convenient to enter often.
But as a result of that decision, I can't keep anything important on my phone at all, because if I did the only thing that stands between the world and the important stuff is a short simple passphrase. That is unacceptable.
If my phone had multiple 'levels' then I could pick which apps / just needed the simple passphrase, and which needed the good one.
"Additionally, there are some options that let you select what TouchID can and canâ(TM)t be used to unlock"
And face-unlock. Yeah... apple *sort* of has that shit worked out... very sort of. Touchid has law enforcement issues since its less decided whether they can compel you to unlock your phone with your fingerprint, and face-unlock is even worse ... plus it doesn't work with sunglasses, doesn't work with a headset with a mic and has the same law enforcement issues. I just have that stuff disabled most of the time.
This actually the biggest issue I have as well. We need to be able to easily create and manage layers of security within our phones.
I'm fine with a simple convenient pin or fingerprint to unlock my phone to place a call, check sms, get directions, use the pay parking app, etc.
But I'd like to have to enter a more secure passphrase to access work email, open documents, view pictures, etc.
And perhaps have something even above that for banking, or health records.
Having a secure passphrase to answer the phone makes the phone unusable. And having anything really important protected by a 4 digit code isn't acceptable, so i can't have anything important on my phone as a result.
At the very least, I'd respond in kind. Police have usually addressed me as sir, there's no reason I wouldn't return the favor.
Plus you need to call them -something-; if you don't know anything else to call them 'sir/maam' is a reasonable placeholder.
Pretty much an ipad pro with a keyboard in a clamshell. Sure, that'll probably exist at some point.
Hopefully the market rejects it (along with Windows 10 S) as soundly as it rejected Windows RT.
In any case, as godawful as that stuff is; its still a proper standalone device; its not a 'dockable phone thing' that requires a phone present to be its 'brains'.
Its really not like an aircraft autopilot though.
1) The aircraft has not one, but two pilots, whose mutual responsibility is to ensure at least one of them is always paying attention.
2) Those pilots are trained, retrained, and then retrained again on every aspect of the craft, including the autopilot, its features, and its limitations. When the autopilot is engaged, the pilots are not allowed to watch movies, or play super mario run on their tablets. They are being paid to do a job.
3) Every aspect of a flight plan is managed by multiple people and software to ensure the plane isn't going to be on a conflicting course with any other plane. The pilots, air traffic control etc are on top of this in a way that a car driver
4) The air is mostly empty, except for other planes that are are all as tightly monitored and managed as the one you are in. There isn't another 747 5 feet away from you driven by teenager with poor lane control. There isn't an airbus 5 feet on your right driven by a woman trying to text with her boyfriend. There isn't a jackass in an F16 tailgating you looking for a chance to pass. And there are no stopped firetrucks at 30,000 feet right in your flight path.
To compare a car's lane assist to an aircraft autopilot is to just invite ridicule. If cars were driven the aircraft are flown, then maybe a tesla autopilot would be safe and reasonable.
Let me know when you register your route with a central controlling authority before getting into your car, get authorization from said authority before any turns or route changes, when you request approval before making a lane change, before entering a round about or cloverleaf, and when you have a 2ndary driver watching the road to cover any time you might not be. Then... maybe you can say aircraft 'autopilot' is basically the same thing.
"Maybe they have something else in the pipeline."
Like a new macbook pro that caters to pro users? I can dream, right?
Then the current so-called macbook and macbook pro could easily fill the niche the macbook air is leaving, since all they've done the last several years is make their 3 separate lines converge to the same thing, which is great if you want that one thing, but lousy if you want anything else.
" Or maybe they don't care about losing market-share in the laptop area because they see tablets/phones as more profitable. "
The thing about that is that destroying the ecosystem tarnishes the smartphones ... once someone switches to a windows laptop the integration with their phone becomes weaker, and the whole reason for choosing iphone becomes weaker.
"(and everyone has been half expecting a decent dockable phone that runs a computer setup for a long time)"
This is an interesting concept and the technology is definitely getting there, but I'm curious to see it'll land successfully or not.
The idea of having my computer in my phone which i can use as a phone/tablet, and then i walk up to a 'dumb terminal' and plug it in, and now I have a keyboard mouse and monitor... looks great on paper, but it seems to be missing a few things.
a) How many people are going to want a dumb terminal that needs a phone plugged into it before it will work? Especially given that an actual computer that your wife or kids can use while you aren't home will actually probably be cheaper. Yes, it works for the 'businessman on the go' and 'single hipsters', but pretty much everyone else finds it simpler and more useful to just have a desktop computer where they want a desktop computer. Docks have always had a niche, but they've never really taken off.
and even bigger b)
Most regular people I know have a phone and a laptop. Gamers and real power users have a desktop, but most people I know just have laptops -- they want and need desktop applications, word, excel, quickbooks, RDP to a server a work, whatever, they want a form factor with a keyboard they can use, and a decent size screen, in a form factor they can carry easily, use in a hotel room, a classroom, or a coffee shop.
A desktop-dock system for their phone doesn't meet any of their needs. Are they going to want to carry around a 'dumb laptop' that they dongle attach their phone too when they need more than a phone/tablet? Dongles are awkward, and phablets are heavy... who is going to want to sit on the couch with a their 'dumb-laptop' with their phablet hanging off it by a usb-c cable for it to work? That'll be unbalanced an awkward at best.* Is there really much market for a laptop device with no brains that needs your phone attached for it to work? And you can't use your phone as a phone while its plugged in like this?
* another possibility is a dumb laptop you slide your phone into, almost like an old PCMCIA card -- but that's only going to work with one model phone, and only if it doesn't have a case. There's no way that's going anywhere.
The *only* good argument for such a thing ever existing is it could be less expensive than just having a proper laptop... which makes it the opposite of the market apple is interested in. Apple would rather court people who can afford a $1200 phone, and then also afford a $2500+ laptop. I can't see them getting to the dumb-terminal market when there's more profit in laptops.
The only other way this tech gets off the ground is if the connection between phatlet and dumb-laptop is wireless. That could actually work. But again, what's the advantage to that over just having an actual laptop, and using wireless sync to move everything you need between them?
And most people will find a full blown laptop more useful... they can still do things with it when there phone is off / low battery / or stolen. The laptop processing isn't burning the battery down on the phone. The laptop has more room than the phone and can pack more horsepower, r
Same reason people steal them. People are stupid.
I never said otherwise. I was only refuting the argument that the police should not be looking for buyers. I agree completely that there is no reason to batter their doors down with a ram.
Finding the buyers can recover the stolen property.
Finding the buyers can lead you to the sellers.
Again, its just cardboard.
I can't imagine why you couldn't *make your own replacements*, even if Nintendo ends up charging silly amounts, or discontinues the product before you are done playing with it.
And I can see the 3d-printing people having a field day with this too. And then that opens the possibility of linking it with Lego...
It might not be the right phone for you, but it seems to me that the phone was not the issue.
After all, your wife used it for 2 years and handed you a perfectly intact phone.