Apple only gets a cut if you make the purchase through them. Recurring subscriptions are not indefinite. They have to go through the Apple store on a monthly basis. If you sell your iPad, then you'll have to find some other mechanism for paying for your subscription... If that doesn't go through Apple, then they will no longer get a cut.
I don't understand why we try to make laws to make this illegal that are already illegal. One argument for this is social networks "...open an avenue for possible illegal activity by employees, such as divulging proprietary or consumer information to outsiders through social networks." Well ok, but that is illegal. And there are OTHER ways for someone to divulge the info. Figure some other way to collect the evidence.
In addition Washington is a right to work state. You don't need a reason to fire someone.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be one on the internet. But if this becomes a law, then the 5th amendment (and the 4th) can come into play. Since it is a government law that allows the corporations to demand this. What I find interesting from the article
Under the amendment, employees would be present when their social network profiles are searched and whatever information found is kept confidential, unless it is relevant to a criminal investigation.
If it is relevant to a criminal investigation, I'd say they need a warrant. Oh wait, they aren't the government, so I don't need to give them anything.
What are you worried about? Finding a job now, or one 5 years from now? Sounds like you have the skills to get a job now. So don't worry what will happen 5 years from now.
Lets suppose this mythical bubble pops. What is the worst case scenario? The 250 million iPhones will still be out there. People will still want a new game or app. But lets suppose they just up and disappear. They'll be replaced with something, google glasses or iWatch or whatever. So guess what you do? Learn the new machine, and move over to it.
Go get a job first, then worry about keeping your skills current and diverse to move to another job down the road.
I can open up the chromebook and actually type on it while sitting on a plane, even tiny regional jets. I usually can't open my regular notebook computer up on a plane because it is too big to fit between me and the seat in front of me.
That is the problem with the laptop you bought. There are laptops that are smaller and still powerful and will open up in an airplane seat.
No, it just means you are a masochist. Web browsers have a LONG way to go before they'll replace thick clients. And if the iPad is any indication web browsers will never replace thick clients.
The problem is that web browsers are too heavy handed, and force too much structure and UI on the program. A thick client has more freedom to do what it wants, and can do a better job at it.
Anya was not innocent in this issue. When he saw wads of cash in the f-150 he should have taken the safe route and refused to work for Esteban Magallon. There is no lawful reason somone would stuff $800,000 in cash under a seat.
Uhm... Sure there is... while the court agrees with you, Anya should have been found innocent. It is not illegal to carry wads of cash (forget about this 800K figure, Anya didn't know that at the time, he just knew it was a bunch of cash)
If the guy knowingly and willingly worked with a drug dealer to build this, maybe, just MAYBE it would hold up in court. However, legal precedent being what it is, I doubt it.
Did you read the article? IT did hold up in court, and he got 24 YEARS...
I bet he knew exactly that the compartments were going to be used for illegal purposes.
I bet you he didn't. Sure, he probably guessed that some of his customers were doing things illegally... But he also probably guessed some where legal. But he didn't KNOW that. Even in this case... it was just money.
This guy knew damn well what his traps were being used for and went right on making them and profiting off of them anyways.
Because there was nothing illegal about what he was doing.
I own a convertible. I usually don't lock it, or put the top up. The top is more valuable than most of the contents. It would be cool to have some hidey holes, that aren't easily accessible. Am I a hardened criminal because I want to keep some of my stuff safe?
Sure he probably knew there was a good chance some of his customers were doing things illegally... and some of his customers weren't. What is your point?We shouldn't do anything if the end result could possibly maybe be used illegally?
Why would a reasonable person keep $800,000 in cash, in their car?
Anaya's job was to build hidey holes for rich people, to stash expensive things in. Rich people aren't always reasonable. Perhaps this guy doesn't like banks. Perhaps this guy wants to save the cost of paying an armored car service and would rather deliver the proceeds to the bank himself. This isn't Anaya's job to figure how why this person has money.
If you participate in something you know to be illegal, that's conspiracy.
He might have had his suspicions, but he didn't KNOW he was involved in anything illegal. He suspected and that was it. It wasn't like the container was full of illegal goods.
And that is the problem.
Having $800K in cash you can't account for is going to get you into the territory of seizure laws, unless you can account for where you got it (and the onus is on you to prove that).
And, sadly, once he saw it, and reasonably knew what the second one was likely to be used for.. he was screwed.
But it shouldn't be up to the cabinet maker to decide if the money is "legal" or not. And as for the second part, I think that is the whole point of this article. Are we supposed to turn in EVERYONE we think might somehow be connected to drug smuggling? Am I complicit when I see someone appear to break a law and then I don't report it? If I see someone carrying a TV outside and I hold the door open, am I complicit when it turns out they are stealing the TV?
If he opened the compartment and found a powdery white substance, is he supposed to taste it to see if it is cocaine or powdered milk?
This is insane.
But what are they infringing on? They are selling Brown's sandwich. They are telling people they are selling Brown's sandwich. Brown is making full profit from selling that sandwich. First Sale says I can resale it. Fair use seems to imply I can indicate it was Brown's. So what is the actual problem?
It doesn't really have anything to do with "Brown" or 'Spicy With" but rather the fact that they make it seem like they have a partnership with Brown and Brown's food service. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm curious to know what legal grounds Brown has to stand on. They aren't competing with Brown as they are selling Brown's product, presumably for more money. Doesn't first sale and fair use cover everything?
Look, I don't like the TSA security procedures... trust me, frequent flyers who have to put up with them all the time hate them more than anyone else. It's certainly your right not to fly. But... seriously... it's really not as bad as you (and apparently a lot of other Slashdotters who avoid the US or air travel all together) seem to think.
Yes, it is. Just because TSA employees can be nice, and the procedures "aren't that bad" doesn't mean they are good. It is unconstitutional. An invasion of our privacy, a waste of time, and a waste of money. And that is the point.
I only fly a few times a year, customs is a hit or miss. Sometimes they ask where you are going, what you are doing, many times they don't. I've had TSA ask me my destination a few times.
And every time I've opted out of the machines, I've had a hand stuck down my pants... Is that what you think is ok? Is it ok for the American government to treat all of its citizens as common criminals?
Don't know what "other" airports you have been to, but I have been to airports in both Asia and Europe in the past few years (India, Japan, Germany, UK, etc),
I have also been around the world, and while I haven't visited Asia, pretty much everywhere else has the same arcane policies as the US. Although only the US insists we take our shoes off anymore. I flew back from South America and entering a domestic flight in South America they questioned the plastic, dull, point of a small tripod... but got no such questions in America. Flying through Paris I had to throw away the water bottle I received on my inbound flight. I don't like the TSA, I think it is a waste of time, money and unconstitutional. But the experience isn't much different than any other airport in the world.
I'm not sure who you are talking about. We don't know if anyone committed any felonies, and now we probably never will know. But a bright young man, who already made the world a better place for mankind, committed suicide. We are worse off because of it.
You can, online, destroy the trust of people into banks, stalling any transactions because of fear/uncertainty. Without the loss of life.
So wouldn't most spam and phishing attacks be called "cyber-terrorism?" Oh it isn't.... What about run of the mill bank robbers? Why is an "attack" that most people don't even know it exists, be cyber-terrorist? Ohh because it isn't.
They are a bunch of thieves. Plain and simple.
You do not have a right to party as loud and as long you may want.
You DO have the right to party as long as you want. But yeah you can be loud, use illegal drugs, park illegally, serve minors... But how about we bust people AFTER they commit the crime, not before they MIGHT commit a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple only gets a cut if you make the purchase through them. Recurring subscriptions are not indefinite. They have to go through the Apple store on a monthly basis. If you sell your iPad, then you'll have to find some other mechanism for paying for your subscription... If that doesn't go through Apple, then they will no longer get a cut.
I don't understand why we try to make laws to make this illegal that are already illegal. One argument for this is social networks "...open an avenue for possible illegal activity by employees, such as divulging proprietary or consumer information to outsiders through social networks." Well ok, but that is illegal. And there are OTHER ways for someone to divulge the info. Figure some other way to collect the evidence.
In addition Washington is a right to work state. You don't need a reason to fire someone.
Under the amendment, employees would be present when their social network profiles are searched and whatever information found is kept confidential, unless it is relevant to a criminal investigation.
If it is relevant to a criminal investigation, I'd say they need a warrant. Oh wait, they aren't the government, so I don't need to give them anything.
What are you worried about? Finding a job now, or one 5 years from now? Sounds like you have the skills to get a job now. So don't worry what will happen 5 years from now.
Lets suppose this mythical bubble pops. What is the worst case scenario? The 250 million iPhones will still be out there. People will still want a new game or app. But lets suppose they just up and disappear. They'll be replaced with something, google glasses or iWatch or whatever. So guess what you do? Learn the new machine, and move over to it.
Go get a job first, then worry about keeping your skills current and diverse to move to another job down the road.
I can open up the chromebook and actually type on it while sitting on a plane, even tiny regional jets. I usually can't open my regular notebook computer up on a plane because it is too big to fit between me and the seat in front of me.
That is the problem with the laptop you bought. There are laptops that are smaller and still powerful and will open up in an airplane seat.
>
Now I read my email in a browser
No, it just means you are a masochist. Web browsers have a LONG way to go before they'll replace thick clients. And if the iPad is any indication web browsers will never replace thick clients.
The problem is that web browsers are too heavy handed, and force too much structure and UI on the program. A thick client has more freedom to do what it wants, and can do a better job at it.
Anya was not innocent in this issue. When he saw wads of cash in the f-150 he should have taken the safe route and refused to work for Esteban Magallon. There is no lawful reason somone would stuff $800,000 in cash under a seat.
Uhm... Sure there is... while the court agrees with you, Anya should have been found innocent. It is not illegal to carry wads of cash (forget about this 800K figure, Anya didn't know that at the time, he just knew it was a bunch of cash)
If the guy knowingly and willingly worked with a drug dealer to build this, maybe, just MAYBE it would hold up in court. However, legal precedent being what it is, I doubt it.
Did you read the article? IT did hold up in court, and he got 24 YEARS...
I bet he knew exactly that the compartments were going to be used for illegal purposes.
I bet you he didn't. Sure, he probably guessed that some of his customers were doing things illegally... But he also probably guessed some where legal. But he didn't KNOW that. Even in this case... it was just money.
This guy knew damn well what his traps were being used for and went right on making them and profiting off of them anyways.
Because there was nothing illegal about what he was doing.
I own a convertible. I usually don't lock it, or put the top up. The top is more valuable than most of the contents. It would be cool to have some hidey holes, that aren't easily accessible. Am I a hardened criminal because I want to keep some of my stuff safe?
Sure he probably knew there was a good chance some of his customers were doing things illegally... and some of his customers weren't. What is your point?We shouldn't do anything if the end result could possibly maybe be used illegally?
Once this guy knew who he was doing business with,
But... he DIDN'T know who he was doing business with. He was doing business with a guy with money....
How did he KNOW the guy got the money through a drug trade? Was it written on the bills? Did the customer confess?
Why would a reasonable person keep $800,000 in cash, in their car?
Anaya's job was to build hidey holes for rich people, to stash expensive things in. Rich people aren't always reasonable. Perhaps this guy doesn't like banks. Perhaps this guy wants to save the cost of paying an armored car service and would rather deliver the proceeds to the bank himself. This isn't Anaya's job to figure how why this person has money.
If you participate in something you know to be illegal, that's conspiracy.
He might have had his suspicions, but he didn't KNOW he was involved in anything illegal. He suspected and that was it. It wasn't like the container was full of illegal goods.
And that is the problem.
Having $800K in cash you can't account for is going to get you into the territory of seizure laws, unless you can account for where you got it (and the onus is on you to prove that).
And, sadly, once he saw it, and reasonably knew what the second one was likely to be used for .. he was screwed.
But it shouldn't be up to the cabinet maker to decide if the money is "legal" or not. And as for the second part, I think that is the whole point of this article. Are we supposed to turn in EVERYONE we think might somehow be connected to drug smuggling? Am I complicit when I see someone appear to break a law and then I don't report it? If I see someone carrying a TV outside and I hold the door open, am I complicit when it turns out they are stealing the TV?
If he opened the compartment and found a powdery white substance, is he supposed to taste it to see if it is cocaine or powdered milk?
This is insane.
But what are they infringing on? They are selling Brown's sandwich. They are telling people they are selling Brown's sandwich. Brown is making full profit from selling that sandwich. First Sale says I can resale it. Fair use seems to imply I can indicate it was Brown's. So what is the actual problem?
It doesn't really have anything to do with "Brown" or 'Spicy With" but rather the fact that they make it seem like they have a partnership with Brown and Brown's food service. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm curious to know what legal grounds Brown has to stand on. They aren't competing with Brown as they are selling Brown's product, presumably for more money. Doesn't first sale and fair use cover everything?
You want to get rid of the TSA?
Don't fly.
It's that simple.
No, it isn't that simple. When a small minority boycotts something... It doesn't really do anything.
Look, I don't like the TSA security procedures... trust me, frequent flyers who have to put up with them all the time hate them more than anyone else. It's certainly your right not to fly. But ... seriously ... it's really not as bad as you (and apparently a lot of other Slashdotters who avoid the US or air travel all together) seem to think.
Yes, it is. Just because TSA employees can be nice, and the procedures "aren't that bad" doesn't mean they are good. It is unconstitutional. An invasion of our privacy, a waste of time, and a waste of money. And that is the point.
I only fly a few times a year, customs is a hit or miss. Sometimes they ask where you are going, what you are doing, many times they don't. I've had TSA ask me my destination a few times.
And every time I've opted out of the machines, I've had a hand stuck down my pants... Is that what you think is ok? Is it ok for the American government to treat all of its citizens as common criminals?
Don't know what "other" airports you have been to, but I have been to airports in both Asia and Europe in the past few years (India, Japan, Germany, UK, etc),
I have also been around the world, and while I haven't visited Asia, pretty much everywhere else has the same arcane policies as the US. Although only the US insists we take our shoes off anymore. I flew back from South America and entering a domestic flight in South America they questioned the plastic, dull, point of a small tripod... but got no such questions in America. Flying through Paris I had to throw away the water bottle I received on my inbound flight. I don't like the TSA, I think it is a waste of time, money and unconstitutional. But the experience isn't much different than any other airport in the world.
I'm not sure who you are talking about. We don't know if anyone committed any felonies, and now we probably never will know. But a bright young man, who already made the world a better place for mankind, committed suicide. We are worse off because of it.
You can, online, destroy the trust of people into banks, stalling any transactions because of fear/uncertainty. Without the loss of life.
So wouldn't most spam and phishing attacks be called "cyber-terrorism?" Oh it isn't.... What about run of the mill bank robbers? Why is an "attack" that most people don't even know it exists, be cyber-terrorist? Ohh because it isn't.
They are a bunch of thieves. Plain and simple.
But why is it necessary to go undercover?
Because they are doing this BEFORE there is any noise, before there is any crime committed.
You do not have a right to party as loud and as long you may want.
You DO have the right to party as long as you want. But yeah you can be loud, use illegal drugs, park illegally, serve minors... But how about we bust people AFTER they commit the crime, not before they MIGHT commit a crime.
there's every reason to criticize these assholes.
I mean, WHAT THE FUCK? it's illegal to have house parties in boston now?
No, it is illegal to have LOUD parties, or park illegally, or give alcohol to minors, or a few other things that were ALREADY illegal.