A file browser, the ability to share files via bluetooth or to install whatever software you want are pretty basic these days, computers and even phones have had such functionality for many years (I had a mid-range phone back in 2004/5 that could do all this). People compromise on form over function all the time (that's why supercars lack a lot of the basic amenities of the family run-around, or stiletto heels are cripplingly bad for women to walk on, but people buy them anyway) - it doesn't mean they wouldn't like the function too, given the chance.
Android phones only need to be rooted if you're doing something that requires root access - for everything else running unsigned (i.e. third party, non-market) apps is simply a matter of unchecking a box in the settings, so no, it's not quite the same thing (as you'd know if you had ever tried to send an MP3 via bluetooth from an Android phone to an iPhone, for instance - they both have this ability but only one allows you to do it without rooting the device).
Regardless of the price there are all kinds of reasons not to be first in the queue to buy a new game - DRM worries and multiplayer issues being the primary ones (a lot of people choose to wait unti they fix the first wave of issues before they commit to buy).
I hadn't planned on playing SC2 but having read the above (relating to battlenet and multiplayer in general as well as the authentication DRM nonsense) I'm starting to worry about what they'll do to Diablo 3...
Where it's unethical is that it effectively gives them a head start in proceedings over whoever they try to file against. Usually the defendant would be notified before this got to court and would have a chance to at least respond - I just don't see how this fits with the notion of equity.
Of course that's all moot in the lawsuit vs insurance question because firstly, if you choose lawsuit over payoff, there's no guaranteed that you won't be killed by a hit and run driver who flees the scene and is never found and secondly, there'd nothing to preclude you doing both as a contigency (assuming the court didn't throw it out as frivolous, which they almost certainly would because you're not a lawyer from a big music label with millions of dollars behind you).
If the slander had already happened, fair enough. What's distasteful here is that the infringements haven't even happened yet, not to mention using this to justify calling in US Marshalls and state police, that's just crazy. If I file a John Doe lawsuit saying I think someone's going to steal my car, can I then use it to get the police to stake out my car instead of having to fit a car alarm?
The parallels are false really - the police quota is just to prevent them sitting on their backsides while actual parking/speeding offences are taking place, but it doesn't prejudice the offender that the officer only caught them because they were trying to fill a quota. On the other hand, suing someone for infringement and beginning proceedings without notifying the person being sued definitely can prejudice them - at the very least it gives them less time to prepare their defence because the case is already underway. Civil law is meant to have its basis in equity, this sounds far from equitable to me - the "offences" haven't even been committed yet! I can understand if someone damages your property and you don't know who they are but think there's a good chance you'll be able to find out, it would be wise to begin proceedings and the courtm seeing actual loss, may decide that is equitable, but what they are doing here is tantamount to throwing away hundreds of years of innocent until proven guilty precedent.
I'm not sure you can make any assumptions on the basis that not all police officers are shooters. Unless it's a proven statistic that they shoot less than the average person, there's just as much chance the cop is a shooter as there is that the person he's going after is one - and since there will be more of them you weight the odds on their favour from the start. Would you bet your life on those odds?
Nevertheless I'd imagine on average a cop would have more experience shooting at real people than a regular person - although admittedly a regular person may have more experience with things like hunting game, being in a firefight with multiple armed opponents is not really comparable. Unless you've a serial killer or have done active military service, it's almost guaranteed on the law of averages that the cops will have more experience, even if that average is slight (1 in 100 or something). Of course, what really matters is their numbers anyway, you're unlikely to take out all the whole unit even if you're a pro, they only need sufficient officers to fall back to a covering position and radio for backup and you'll have SWAT teams with itchy trigger fingers and a cop killer in their sights in no time.
I wonder if they accounted for subsequent user actions once they've unlocked the phone (as far as I know the swipe only unlocks, you can lock by just hitting the power key right?). It's got to be pretty rare that a user will activate their phone and then do nothing with it, just lock it again - I guess when checking the time but you don't need to unlock the phone for that, it could be handled with a different mechanism, i.e. if the phone is locked and you hit the power key it just shows the time for 10 seconds. For most other uses I would imagine the usage itself would obliterate anything useful - if I'm typing messages or scrolling around the web or even the number directory there'd be little of my original swipe left to interpret by the time I lock the phone again.
Actually I can probably "Swype" faster than I can type on a phone keyboard these days. I always thought the google password lock was more of a fun feature than serious security, anyway - kind of like those diaries kids get with the chunky plastic locks, they wouldn't stand up to a serious attack but they'd stop the casual intrusion. There are plenty of alternative security solutions for Android phones if it's a real consideration (including buying an Android phone with a physical keyboad if you're really worried about smudge readers).
There are better ways to manage cleaning the screen, but even with this approach if you saw the cloth had been destroyed you might be a little more cautious when using the terminal (wipe it with a tissue or a sleeve or something just in case someone's gone to the trouble of removing the wiping mechanism for a reason).
Public machines could also have some mechanism to wipe the screen after use, some shutter mechanism with a microfibre cloth. As a bonus it could be disinfectant, too - I always worry what I might catch on these public terminals.
That's fine until you come to enter the answer because you forgot your password. It would be much easier to allow me to set both the question and answer - that way I can think of a question that will give a non-obvious answer that is nevertheless easy for me to remember - favourite childhood sandwich, jam, cheese and banana or something. It is odd, though, that many of these sites insist on a mix of numbers and letters, minimum string length, etc and yet they have security questions you could brute force in minutes with a digital copy of the phone book. Even worse, one I saw recently "what was your first car" - even if an attacker had to go though the make and model of all cars ever made that wouldn't take long to solve, if he had your age and country of residence the field would be trivially small (even smaller since for most people you can rule out expensive sports cars and the like as most people's first car).
Completely agree - I'd say the combination of people having lived through a relative boom and not having the anguish of trying to find a job during an economic downturn couple with the media hysteria about identity theft no doubt account for people's worries being misplaced in this way. For most people "identity theft" means a few troublesome calls to the bank to sort it out - in many cases the bank does all the legwork (I had a call from my bank to alert me a site that took a payment from my card had some data compromised, they cancelled my card and sent me a new one within a couple of days and I didn't have to lift a finger). Cases where identity theft led to the loss of your home must be incredibly rare or we'd be hearing about them all the time in the media which loves reporting on this, cases of people losing their home because they couldn't find a new job are all too common.
Probably because that wouldn't support their story that it was an online statement rather than a glut of evidence and a guilty plea in court that sent him down. The former is far more likely to sell clicks from angry internet users.
He pleaded guilty. It's likely he is guilty. I know if I was framed for a crime I didn't commit on the basis of video or photographic evidence, I'd certainly not plead guilty, I'd want the "evidence" inspected by an independent expert.
If you assume the guy lies to make himself sound good, wouldn't it be more like:
Interviewer: "So, can you explain what you've been doing for the last 9 months?"
Interviewee: "My main job was Prime Minister of Luxembourg, but in my spare time I also volunteered to go save orphan babies from rabies infested tigers in the congo. Oh, and I 99% found the cure for cancer - I left the 1% for the other scientists to do because I'm not interested in the fame and glory, you can probably expect to hear about it any day." ...
Interviewer: "Okay, so we've established that you're a prat. Have you got any questions you'd like to ask me?"
Modded up? All that would happen is the police would hire a very expensive expert to determine the photos and/or video were not doctored, and then they'd hit him with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (or whatever the US equivalent for lying about evidence is) as well as speeding. Given how much courts dislike being lied to and having their time wasted, which one do you think carries the higher sentence? As to your second point, all evidence is logged - it would be a simple defence to a future arrest based on the video to point to the previous case.
It's nothing more than reasonable suspicion, which gives the police cause to investigate if they choose. Maybe they found some evidence (CCTV nearby, witnesses, etc), maybe the kid was just scared or was sorry for his actions and thus pleaded guilty, either way it was the pleading guilty that earned his sentence not the forum post.
Witnesses - he claimed people saw what he did, if the police can track down witnesses they can prove his crime. This would be impossible before they knew a crime even existed, but once they knew dates and times, speed and other details it would be much simpler to collect evidence (ever noticed those "A crime was committed here on , can you help?" boards the police sometimes put up?
Few people openly admit to speeding unless they've actually done so.
He was a teenager. Teenagers admit to all kinds of stuff they've not actually done if they think it will win the approval of or avoid the derision of their peers.
Slashdot Mirror
A file browser, the ability to share files via bluetooth or to install whatever software you want are pretty basic these days, computers and even phones have had such functionality for many years (I had a mid-range phone back in 2004/5 that could do all this). People compromise on form over function all the time (that's why supercars lack a lot of the basic amenities of the family run-around, or stiletto heels are cripplingly bad for women to walk on, but people buy them anyway) - it doesn't mean they wouldn't like the function too, given the chance.
Android phones only need to be rooted if you're doing something that requires root access - for everything else running unsigned (i.e. third party, non-market) apps is simply a matter of unchecking a box in the settings, so no, it's not quite the same thing (as you'd know if you had ever tried to send an MP3 via bluetooth from an Android phone to an iPhone, for instance - they both have this ability but only one allows you to do it without rooting the device).
they do not believe that they were in fact hunters, more likely scavenging the remains left behind by large predators
It's highly likely but we can't be sure until they find some primitive C&D orders carved on stone.
Regardless of the price there are all kinds of reasons not to be first in the queue to buy a new game - DRM worries and multiplayer issues being the primary ones (a lot of people choose to wait unti they fix the first wave of issues before they commit to buy).
I hadn't planned on playing SC2 but having read the above (relating to battlenet and multiplayer in general as well as the authentication DRM nonsense) I'm starting to worry about what they'll do to Diablo 3...
Where it's unethical is that it effectively gives them a head start in proceedings over whoever they try to file against. Usually the defendant would be notified before this got to court and would have a chance to at least respond - I just don't see how this fits with the notion of equity.
Of course that's all moot in the lawsuit vs insurance question because firstly, if you choose lawsuit over payoff, there's no guaranteed that you won't be killed by a hit and run driver who flees the scene and is never found and secondly, there'd nothing to preclude you doing both as a contigency (assuming the court didn't throw it out as frivolous, which they almost certainly would because you're not a lawyer from a big music label with millions of dollars behind you).
If the slander had already happened, fair enough. What's distasteful here is that the infringements haven't even happened yet, not to mention using this to justify calling in US Marshalls and state police, that's just crazy. If I file a John Doe lawsuit saying I think someone's going to steal my car, can I then use it to get the police to stake out my car instead of having to fit a car alarm?
The parallels are false really - the police quota is just to prevent them sitting on their backsides while actual parking/speeding offences are taking place, but it doesn't prejudice the offender that the officer only caught them because they were trying to fill a quota. On the other hand, suing someone for infringement and beginning proceedings without notifying the person being sued definitely can prejudice them - at the very least it gives them less time to prepare their defence because the case is already underway. Civil law is meant to have its basis in equity, this sounds far from equitable to me - the "offences" haven't even been committed yet! I can understand if someone damages your property and you don't know who they are but think there's a good chance you'll be able to find out, it would be wise to begin proceedings and the courtm seeing actual loss, may decide that is equitable, but what they are doing here is tantamount to throwing away hundreds of years of innocent until proven guilty precedent.
I'm not sure you can make any assumptions on the basis that not all police officers are shooters. Unless it's a proven statistic that they shoot less than the average person, there's just as much chance the cop is a shooter as there is that the person he's going after is one - and since there will be more of them you weight the odds on their favour from the start. Would you bet your life on those odds?
Nevertheless I'd imagine on average a cop would have more experience shooting at real people than a regular person - although admittedly a regular person may have more experience with things like hunting game, being in a firefight with multiple armed opponents is not really comparable. Unless you've a serial killer or have done active military service, it's almost guaranteed on the law of averages that the cops will have more experience, even if that average is slight (1 in 100 or something). Of course, what really matters is their numbers anyway, you're unlikely to take out all the whole unit even if you're a pro, they only need sufficient officers to fall back to a covering position and radio for backup and you'll have SWAT teams with itchy trigger fingers and a cop killer in their sights in no time.
I wonder if they accounted for subsequent user actions once they've unlocked the phone (as far as I know the swipe only unlocks, you can lock by just hitting the power key right?). It's got to be pretty rare that a user will activate their phone and then do nothing with it, just lock it again - I guess when checking the time but you don't need to unlock the phone for that, it could be handled with a different mechanism, i.e. if the phone is locked and you hit the power key it just shows the time for 10 seconds. For most other uses I would imagine the usage itself would obliterate anything useful - if I'm typing messages or scrolling around the web or even the number directory there'd be little of my original swipe left to interpret by the time I lock the phone again.
Actually I can probably "Swype" faster than I can type on a phone keyboard these days. I always thought the google password lock was more of a fun feature than serious security, anyway - kind of like those diaries kids get with the chunky plastic locks, they wouldn't stand up to a serious attack but they'd stop the casual intrusion. There are plenty of alternative security solutions for Android phones if it's a real consideration (including buying an Android phone with a physical keyboad if you're really worried about smudge readers).
There are better ways to manage cleaning the screen, but even with this approach if you saw the cloth had been destroyed you might be a little more cautious when using the terminal (wipe it with a tissue or a sleeve or something just in case someone's gone to the trouble of removing the wiping mechanism for a reason).
Public machines could also have some mechanism to wipe the screen after use, some shutter mechanism with a microfibre cloth. As a bonus it could be disinfectant, too - I always worry what I might catch on these public terminals.
Little Bobby Tables?
That's fine until you come to enter the answer because you forgot your password. It would be much easier to allow me to set both the question and answer - that way I can think of a question that will give a non-obvious answer that is nevertheless easy for me to remember - favourite childhood sandwich, jam, cheese and banana or something. It is odd, though, that many of these sites insist on a mix of numbers and letters, minimum string length, etc and yet they have security questions you could brute force in minutes with a digital copy of the phone book. Even worse, one I saw recently "what was your first car" - even if an attacker had to go though the make and model of all cars ever made that wouldn't take long to solve, if he had your age and country of residence the field would be trivially small (even smaller since for most people you can rule out expensive sports cars and the like as most people's first car).
Completely agree - I'd say the combination of people having lived through a relative boom and not having the anguish of trying to find a job during an economic downturn couple with the media hysteria about identity theft no doubt account for people's worries being misplaced in this way. For most people "identity theft" means a few troublesome calls to the bank to sort it out - in many cases the bank does all the legwork (I had a call from my bank to alert me a site that took a payment from my card had some data compromised, they cancelled my card and sent me a new one within a couple of days and I didn't have to lift a finger). Cases where identity theft led to the loss of your home must be incredibly rare or we'd be hearing about them all the time in the media which loves reporting on this, cases of people losing their home because they couldn't find a new job are all too common.
Probably because that wouldn't support their story that it was an online statement rather than a glut of evidence and a guilty plea in court that sent him down. The former is far more likely to sell clicks from angry internet users.
He pleaded guilty. It's likely he is guilty. I know if I was framed for a crime I didn't commit on the basis of video or photographic evidence, I'd certainly not plead guilty, I'd want the "evidence" inspected by an independent expert.
If you assume the guy lies to make himself sound good, wouldn't it be more like:
Interviewer: "So, can you explain what you've been doing for the last 9 months?"
...
Interviewee: "My main job was Prime Minister of Luxembourg, but in my spare time I also volunteered to go save orphan babies from rabies infested tigers in the congo. Oh, and I 99% found the cure for cancer - I left the 1% for the other scientists to do because I'm not interested in the fame and glory, you can probably expect to hear about it any day."
Interviewer: "Okay, so we've established that you're a prat. Have you got any questions you'd like to ask me?"
Modded up? All that would happen is the police would hire a very expensive expert to determine the photos and/or video were not doctored, and then they'd hit him with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (or whatever the US equivalent for lying about evidence is) as well as speeding. Given how much courts dislike being lied to and having their time wasted, which one do you think carries the higher sentence? As to your second point, all evidence is logged - it would be a simple defence to a future arrest based on the video to point to the previous case.
It's nothing more than reasonable suspicion, which gives the police cause to investigate if they choose. Maybe they found some evidence (CCTV nearby, witnesses, etc), maybe the kid was just scared or was sorry for his actions and thus pleaded guilty, either way it was the pleading guilty that earned his sentence not the forum post.
Witnesses - he claimed people saw what he did, if the police can track down witnesses they can prove his crime. This would be impossible before they knew a crime even existed, but once they knew dates and times, speed and other details it would be much simpler to collect evidence (ever noticed those "A crime was committed here on , can you help?" boards the police sometimes put up?
Few people openly admit to speeding unless they've actually done so.
He was a teenager. Teenagers admit to all kinds of stuff they've not actually done if they think it will win the approval of or avoid the derision of their peers.