And meanwhile, states are pushing voter-ID laws to combat a problem of which there are only a handful of incidents in the past 12 years.

Crazy. You can go to the website and add features on Verizon, which includes tethering. However you get a data bucket for the tethered data, while your phone gets to use the unlimited bucket.

Yes, that would do it!

Where are you that 20/90 is legally blind? That's nothing.

In my state it's 20/200. You need glasses past 20/40 if you want to drive, though.

I suspect the problem is that you also associate e-mail addresses with your iMessages. If someone sends to your e-mail address instead of your phone number, it can't fall back to SMS. I don't know why it would say "Delivered"--and I suspect it doesn't. But the problem in this case would be the sender not using the phone number to try to send the message.

If the law didn't specify what "partial nudity" means, then I think the ruling is perfectly valid. What is partial nudity? Can someone go out in public "partially nude?" Can they be arrested for that?

I don't think it's fair to use one the standard differently. A person should not be partially nude while out in public.

The error here is not on the judge's part, but on the legislature's. If the legislature had better defined their terms, there wouldn't be ambiguity. If they had specified that these kinds of photos were illegal, there wouldn't be a question here. They did not, and so the judges (who are upholding the law, not their opinions of it) made the right call.

Even if it means a pervert is still on the streets.

No, you've got it wrong. The women were considered fully clothed because no private parts were exposed. Partial nudity requires "private" parts to be uncovered, not any part of your body. That's precisely why this guy got off--despite his creepy photograph, he wasn't photographing partially nude people--he was photographing fully clothed ones. The law (apparently) doesn't criminalize photographing fully clothed people.

You can opt-out, certainly. How many will? How many will not just hit the "update all" button if they do opt out?

How do you know? I mean really, how do you know they aren't sending up your passphrase?

Even if they're not now, how do you know they won't? If TLA government agency asks them to, do you think they wouldn't issue an app update that sent them your passphrase? Assuming you trust them today, will you decline every app update?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but they're valid points. If the submitter is in an industry where "obviously" he can't use Lastpass, then I'm assuming these are operationally valid concerns.

And this is why I'd really like to see Internet providers become common carriers. The Internet has become much too important to let squabbles like this endanger it.

Well most jailbreaks require plugging your device in. That means that your exposure is pretty small and there won't be drive-by exploits like this one.

And Apple may not support the 3GS anymore, but their support record is still stronger than most android phone manufacturers.

If there's a run on banks, getting all of your money back instead of slightly less than half probably isn't going to do you much good anyway.

If the CEO's bonus is tied to performance (it often isn't--instead it's usually written into his contract and so really is just formalized compensation--but let's pretend), then being able to do the same or more with less overhead would be a reason to give a bonus.

It's really quite a bit like herd immunity.

Slashdot hasn't been the same in a very, very long time. But I try not to judge people by their UID.