Re: Speaking as a Scientist...
Yes. Priviledges exist for a reason: people doing things they shouldn't.
If someone should have access, they'll have a password.
126 posts • joined 3 Sep 2012
Yes. Priviledges exist for a reason: people doing things they shouldn't.
If someone should have access, they'll have a password.
And some people turn their car radios down so that they can find the street they're looking for better...
You seem zealously anti-zealot...
That's not the fault of people striving to preserve liberty, that's the fault of their education system and the media. And I doubt people have forgotten anyway. Not agreeing with John McCain isn't a test for memory...
...how else to explain the downvotes on comments posted and replying with just the plain statement of what the legislation actually says?
"delete Indiana from its list of acceptable..."
I do believe that you'll find that to be a case of discrimination itself...
"thoughts and pronouncements are coming from people who have considered the topic in depth before speaking, rather than relying on their instant prejudices, insecurities, and self-importance."
I highly doubt people so driven by money will be immune from aligning themselves with a popular agenda for personal or financial reasons...
"their hearts are in the right place"
Their hearts may be in the right place...now. The issue isn't just now. Data is being collected and stored into perpetuity. And given the way they act above not just the law, but the constitution of the US, what will that mean for US citizens who do something innocuous now, but which may become illegal in the future, and find themselves retroactively prosecuted? On the basis of unconstitutionally collected evidence?
The NSA does this too, as we know. So basically by demanding that China not do so, Obama is indicating that he believes the US gets to talk down to other nations.
everyone MUST KNOW what he thinks, and why he's so much better than the author of the column.
With regards to an intelligence agency such as the NSA producing a "National Security Letter" for them to hand over all their customers' data, the issue of Apple selling data is irrelevant.
"On top of that, Cook vowed that the Apple Watch would replace car keys and large fobs that many manufacturers now use to lock vehicles. Its battery life will also apparently last an entire day."
1.) Why should I need an Apple product to buy a car?
2.) I'm sure the battery in my car key lasts more than a day...
"Cook, in a clear attack on the likes of Google and its "trove of data", said: We don’t make money selling your information to somebody else."
1.) Sure, who would buy the data when it can just be hacked? As Jennifer Lawrence found out to her woe...
2.) And I'm sure Google doesn't make any money when handed a "National Security Letter" to just hand it all over.
...even if it just falls out of orbit in the right place...
And since its online, its running across that same nasty internet. She seems not able to even.
...to American Psycho...
Indeed, Apple will have been silenced by the national security letter they were shown from disclosing what malware the NSA is pushing into their systems to spy on everyone with.
I have a Google Nexus 4. I get the latest version of Android not long after it becomes available. I'm on KitKat right now. Manufacturers like Samsung will take longer as they want to test and develop it to their liking first. And they'll only push it out to some handsets and not others.
Of course, Mr. Cook doesn't care about that kind of specificity. He wants to say that Android is rubbish, use iOS on a shiny new iDevice. I have nothing untoward in my Android experience to pay much attention though. And if I changed, it wouldn't be to Apple. I've used one. I don't like it.
But that's the problem. Tim Cook is no Steve Jobs. I'm not a fan of the late Mr. Jobs, but he was a visionary and had great insight into what Apple's products needed to be and do. Tim Cook can't do that. He does seem to have the arrogance of Mr. Jobs, though, but without the talent, that may spell trouble for Apple.
Tim Cook must have confused iLife with the real thing.
But if that fruit has rounded corners, Apple will claim the thought of it first and sue.
Yeah, after eating an...Apple...
And with more people using Android by far, its more worthwhile to find ways into Android than iOS. Its the old "PCs have viruses, Macs don't" nonsense. Its not because it can't be done to an Apple, but because not enough people care to do so.
If the majority of people had an iOS device, then the malware for those would come tumbling out of the woodwork.
He's back from BEYOND THE GRAAAVE?! At least he'll only go after shiny braaaiiinsss...
Must be another childish name fanbois have invented (don't forget to patent!) to appear cool...if only in their own minds.
sure, its not a Personal Computer...its very IMpersonal actually...now there's less reason than ever to buy an Apple
We can reflect on who and why Nokia has gone, but a few here remember that they once made good stuff. Stuff that's remembered today, even though we have five inch 1080p screens and four or eight cores (!) in the latest phones.
At the news that Nokia's phone division now belongs properly to Microsoft, I pulled a couple of my old phones "out of mothballs," and had thought back on how good they were, or wanted to be.
My 6085 was a surprisingly good phone. I remember viewing Facebook and even work mail in its browser on its tiny screen five years ago, and it still works.
The 9300 I have wasn't great. Some may even think of it with scorn, but back then it wasn't bad, and it still works now. The E90 I had after was only better by virtue of more features.
My 5800 is still in use by my mother. It's 3.2 inch touchscreen was remarkably good, and it seemed to always achieve full download speed as a 3G modem. I liked its packaging and all the little things it came with. When I look at all the shenanigans that go on with the phone industry today, it reminds me of when a cell phone was just a phone and not an appendage.
I also had a 5210, and a 3510 (not the colour screen one. But it had polyphonic ringtones!), and a tough 5110. They were all good phones, at least for me, even if they didn't survive to today.
We won't see phones like them again. They wouldn't try to replace out PCs, and they wouldn't need to. It really is a tragedy that Nokia let something as pathetic as politics and corporate foolishness destroy good what could have been. But thanks for the phones.
So, M_W, Apple's phone...is a bad phone? But its good as something other than what it was named for? ;P
...now certain governments will not only track your movements, but control them too...
"But its all just tubes, isn't it?"
...don't tell the people they're responsible to...that's illegal.
"Home Secretary Theresa May believed it was necessary to examine all the data 'without delay in the interests of national security'."
I could SMELL that coming from reading the subtitle. Miranda isn't even suspected of terrorism, but he was arrested under antiterrorism legislation. Now the authoritaaahs have some intel, no way will they give it up. I suspect they'll sift through every last byte. The "partial injunction" is just a formality.
The Bolivian prime minister gets forced out of the sky based on no real evidence. Now a Brazilian citizen has been falsely arrested in England. If Obummer had been made to land in Bolivia, there would have been war. If a British citizen had been wrongly arrested and robbed in Brazil, the police would have been sent to taser an old man. The opinion of the USA and England regarding South Americans seems rather poor.
"The court found that this data gathering violated the Fourth Amendment of the constitution"
"the FISC application was not authorized, this will prove of little reassurance, as the verdict concludes that the government had not been truthful with the secret court."
The above, in plain English: the US government has been violating the US constitution, spying on US citizens, and lying to the court established to protect the people from being spied on. When we consider this, and "Free Speech Zones," certain of those in government there don't seem to like the constitution. I would imagine that's because "We the People" could cast them out of power. Considering news like this, US citizens should indeed exercise their rights before those rights are no more.
BlackBerry should have brought their new phones and OS out years ago. By not doing so they let their hold on the market slip, and with rising stars like Android and iOS its a herculean feat to pull that back. This new OS and hardware push was their last chance (I don't see where another one will come from), and it hasn't worked.
Like Nokia's aborted successor to Symbian, it didn't fail because it was a bad product, but because it was badly managed. Hopefully this will serve as a warning to other businesses.
Wow, nice of you to insinuate that if someone doesn't like Apple, then they must be unreasonable and irrational.
Let's not forget Apple see themselves as more worthy of being a monopsonist than anyone else. They'll start a nuclear war over it...
Thank you, Tom 7. I seldom laugh so spontaneously, or heartily.
Good ol' politicians. "We were going to fix things anyway...honest guys! this mean man just prompted us to hurry a little is all!"
"We just wouldn't be having this debate without Snowden; it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise," well sure, Snowden has already suggested that Obama and his administration are less than honest. Obama said he wouldn't expend any effort to get a twenty-nine year old hacker, but then the vice president interfered with his search for asylum. They want him back to shut him up, but he's far too much in the world's eye at the moment.
The American people are indeed the greatest threat to them. But they'll soon subdue them. They're already herding protesters at presidential appearances into out of the way "Free Speech Zones," which effectively violate the freedoms of speech and assembly that US citizens are supposed to enjoy under their constitution. Now their right to privacy is being undermined.
The American people had better do something soon...
I appreciate the clarity of your logic, and I would hope the citizens of the United States would too.
But its not hard for secret laws and secret courts to get around the Bill of Rights when its so blatantly disregarded by the US government...
Does a citizen of the United States want to employ their right to free speech and to freely assemble at a presidential appearance to make their support for one of the president's political opponents known? The government will want to herd them into "Free Speech Zones" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone). They're obviously hoping that the people won't figure out that having their free speech limited to a zone means that its not really free. The logic is simple: if a US citizen is only allowed to freely assemble and speak in a certain zone, then 1.) they're not really free, and 2.) that means that any other zone is not a free speech zone. No freedom of assembly and speech there, your government has spoke, peasant!
"Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." If the people assemble peaceably, what is the use of "Free Speech Zones"? And if the government will listen to their grievances and seek to resolve them, then the people should surely stay peaceable. And if anyone becomes violent, then arrest them. Thus "Free Speech Zones" (which are probably situated conveniently out of the way) obviously serve an agenda...
And now its the right to privacy is being taken away too...
Or some good ol' 'Murican snake oil?
A comprehensive privacy law? What good will a law do when the constitution of the United States is blatantly disregarded by the government of the United States? THAT's the method that the IRS and the courts are being told to keep confidential...
"DEA officials have since defended the practice as lawful and said it was designed to safeguard sources and methods, and not to withhold evidence from defendants and their lawyers." So defendants and their lawyers were told that their constitutional rights had been used as toilet paper? Nope! The "sources" being safeguarded are the NSA and the "methods" being safeguarded are the violation of the rights of US citizens.
This was done to prevent the defendants and their lawyers appealing for the evidence to be thrown out on the grounds that its unconstitutional. And since it was an "open secret in government," can we believe that no judge ever heard of it? Can we believe that those judges didn't understand it could happen in their courtroom and probe the evidence appearing accordingly?
Maybe that is true, but that doesn't make things any better. It just means that law enforcement agencies have, with government authority, been lying to the courts for almost a decade now. That means that whatever their good intentions, they have been undermining the foundation of America and covering that with lies. And that isn't just going to go away. Its going to get worse. The American people need to remind their government that they elected them, and they can put them out of office if they see fit. They need to do it before the government tries to take that from them too.
Apple would fudge their pants over the "i"...how about eyeDroid?
Just what I was thinking, asdf. They're protected by the same reason Apple remained largely virus/attack free for so long: lack of malicious interest...
Who needs to crack the Windows Phone OS when they have such holes in their networking protocols?!
I thought it stood for something a bit more technical and IT specific like "Network Technology."
As for the chance that Windows 8, like Windows NT 3.1, will be remembered with fondness in 20 years time: no chance: the masses already hate it now...
...over much smaller things than Venus and Jupiter...
Cuban missile crisis, satellite launches that seemed suspiciously like missile launches, it seems some nations don't need no stinking planets to go into mob mode on other countries...
"Just ask those parents whose children have died at the hands of idiots like this"
The people who shoot up schools don't post their intentions on social media beforehand. In fact, terrorists as an obvious rule don't do that. Kinda limits their chances of success. So is that really what he was doing?
Or was he just venting some kind of frustration in a way I agree is totally inappropriate, but this is very much about "free speech." Where is the police work that has brought evidence to light that he is what they call a CREDIBLE threat? Does he own or have access to the necessary weapons? Is he involved with people who are considered a threat to school safety?
The police have, after four months, not produced any such evidence. All they have is a few posts on Facebook.