|
Be that as it may, it's certainly easier to move to a different company's ecosystem when you don't agree with their policies than it is to completely move countries.
Governments should be held to a much, much, much higher standard.
|
|
|
|
|
There's a naivety in thinking you can move from the 'ecosystem' as you call it.
For an outstanding example, consider that I've never agreed to Google's terms of service for anything - and never had a gmail account.
Yet - if I send email to someone with such an account my email is kept, scanned, archived, etc. Now, should I send an email to another gmail sucker, they get my information there, too - they've just started a profile on me. Any mail sent to me from gmail account? More of the same.
Soon, that ecosystem has invaded my privacy big-time - without so much as a warrant, agreement, warning, or anything else.
And to whom are they accountable?
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd never considered that angle before. I'd always assumed that they didn't keep anything since you hadn't agreed to their terms of service. But you may well be right.
Seems like the two situations aren't quite as comparable as I thought. Google and GMail are practically everywhere; countries aren't. Unless you want to talk about global spying being done by certain nation-states, but that's another conversation entirely...
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: One of the ridiculous parts of this whole charade is why the US government seems to think they need Apple for this.
In order to prosecute a case in court, you have to have gotten your information/intel "legally". Any hack they do without Apple's approval, is illegal and not admissible in court.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: Any hack they do without Apple's approval, is illegal and not admissible in court.
That's not true at all.
Apple doesn't own the phone, nor did the terrorist. It was owned by his employer (a local government agency) and they've given the FBI the OK.
The only legal argument I can imagine (other than the obvious point that the FBI wants to set a precedent for the 100's of thousands of new cases where they'll want access) is that a jury may feel that an "official" Apple hack is less likely to corrupt data.
Imagine the police finding a safe in a criminal's house. They don't need to demand a master key from the manufacturer. They hire a damn locksmith. Same principle here.
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure Apple could pull some obscure line out of their cavernous terms of service to exert ownership just like John Deere and GMC tried.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: One of the ridiculous parts of this whole charade is why the US government seems to think they need Apple for this.
It's theatre. Think about it. There is growing resistance to the government's attempts to get backdoors installed in encryption and security software. So what are they doing? Making a public case about them not asking for a backdoor.
Which they aren't. They're asking for the bouncer (the ten tries and you're wiped mechanism) to be fired so they can stand at the front door and try all the keys until they find the right one.
They're pretending they're trying to play by the rules now. I just hope people (the common person, not us technically literate ones) see through the charade...
|
|
|
|
|
Well - the court can order Apple to try - but they can't force them to succeed.
But reality is that apple (MS, and the others that chimed in on their side) are full of cr@p. Apple's milking this for the free publicity and feigning they care about the user's privacy. They've been violating that to a massive degree. MS: invading Windows 10 systems at will - installing whatever they wish.
It's a major crock to get that free publicity they've been getting. Much like Donald Trump's outrageous remarks and all the free airtime that gets him. Maybe he's apple's inspiration?!!
Apple knows full well that they're showing 'proof of concept' will not change the fact that cracking the phones has been an ongoing project since the day of its inception. And wasn't that 10-try deal put in to make stealing their phones pointless?
Whist I's at it, government 'officials' throughout the world are joining the ban-encryption bandwagon. What a hopelessly ignorant bunch of morons (on a good day).
I'm about to leave KSS status, so I'll quit.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Won't happen.
There are some pretty damn good coders writing keyloggers, trojans, popups, blah de blah...
All this effort, all this skill, for this? | CommitStrip[^]
There are always people who don't care what it's used for - regardless of the industry or profession.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
It's a nice thought however when you get this sort of dynamic, where a group of people stand up and oppose something - invariably you will find that the execs will identify the people they want to keep and make them lucrative offers to keep them.
What then happens is that the people who were kept, through being lured back by money, are soon replaced with new people who are much less likely to question the authority of the execs.
A lot of people have a price for which they would be willing to concede some of their freedom/integrity.
The only question to ask is as an individual, when you decide to make a stand on a point of principle, how much would someone have to pay you in order for you to stand down?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't work; there's always someone in the field that would accept the job.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if you're living in a field any job looks good!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Recently I've had two thread replies fail to show up in the thread at the time of posting.
They were, I presume, flagged as potential spam and sent to a moderator for approval.
Here is the latest example:
The Lounge - CodeProject[^]
I can't find any FAQs that indicate what the spam detector is looking for. Keywords? Length? ...
This isn't a big deal. I'm merely curious. TIA for any insights.
Cheers,
Mike Fidler
"I intend to live forever - so far, so good." Steven Wright
"I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met." Also Steven Wright
"I'm addicted to placebos. I could quit, but it wouldn't matter." Steven Wright yet again.
|
|
|
|
|
MikeTheFid wrote: I can't find any FAQs that indicate what the spam detector is looking for. Keywords? Length? ...
And you won't. If you could, the spammers would read it, and tailor their posts accordingly.
Apart from anything else, it's not a static list of rules. It's something like a Bayesian filter, which learns and adapts based on previous spam reports.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
For stuff the filters deem suspicious, yes, there is a moderation queue that posts end up in.
Not everything ends up in it though.
|
|
|
|
|
I approved that one from the moderation queue. I could not see what it was that got the spam filter excited, but it was obviously not spam. It may be a couple of keywords somewhere in the message, or your signature.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: I could not see what it was that got the spam filter excited
Really?
Quote: Do what you love, and you never have to work a day in your life!
Now where have I seen sentences like that one before?
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Ctrl+V works on a console window!
Finally. How many freaking version of Windows did we have to go through for that to happen?
(Maybe it worked on W8 too, but I skipped that abortion.)
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, at this rate, by the time we get to Windows 20 (I expect some more skipped versions) they'll have finally brought the system up to the level of DOS.
Not too shabby.
Well, actually, yes, it is.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
What, DOS with it's wonderful clipboard support? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget the "brick wall" learning curve, and sooooooo helpful manual!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does that author not know about "QuickEdit Mode" and copy/paste simply with the right-click?  Why does he go through such convoluted convulsions?  I've never heard of anyone doing that.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
