It has this. Just enroll the device as a developer device, and compile the code, or enroll it as a corporate device, if you want to use precompiled code you trust but that Apple won't allow into the App store because Apple doesn't trust it.

If you mean thing like side-loading just random crap, like if I were a private detective hired by your wife, and had 60 seconds of access to your iPhone, I could sideload some serious backdoor onto your phone to enable me to monitor your texts, phone calls, email, Facebook, and so on ... I'm pretty sure no one wants someone else to be able to load that kind of crap on their phones, but if you can do it, they can do it, too.

The plane did not *have* to divert, the plane *chose* to divert, to make a point about drones.

If the drone was operating between 800 and 900 feet off the ground, it was well out of any potential collision zone.

An airtanker on a retardant run operates at an altitude of 150 to 200 feet.

I have an iPhone 1; it was given to me in 2007 as part of the Apple iPhone giveaway to employees.

It is now 8 years old. And using the original battery, and not having charge or capacity problems.

The only people who care about removable batteries are the people who want to have multiple batteries so that they can replace them in order to maintain a more or less continuous duty cycle for the device.

For those people, there are cases with integrated batteries they could use as an external power source.

It was more or less a series of border skirmishes (including a few port cities), until the proclamation.

This map animation demonstrates it better than I could with just words:

http://storymaps.esri.com/stor...

The proclamation more or less gave a mandate to penetrate deeply into the Southern states in order to enforce it.

If my church were being torn down for a telescope, I would of course protest.

However, I would protest when they were first tearing it down in 1967, and not wait until 37 years later, in 2004, to start protesting.

They've only been protesting about how holy the site is since about 2004. When it benefitted them in ways other than piety for them to do so. This is about trying to garner international attention for the monarchist movement in Hawaii, who would like to bring back the Kingdom of Hawaii, and are still pissed off about the deposition of Queen Liliuokalani, and the effective annexation of Hawaii in 1893.

Protesting a telescope gets media attention, even though there are already 13 telescopes on the site, operated by 11 nations, and they are in fact already the largest astronomical observatory on the planet. The only thing new about this one is that it was easier to latch onto the media attention, since the telescope in question was going to be very large, and was therefore already getting media attention.

Of course, assuming this was granted (thus setting the precedent for all non extinct indian nations to reclaim their lands within the U.S. as well), there would immediately be internecine warfare as to *who*, of the 10 groups claiming to have the "rightful" king or queen among their members, got to be the "official" one.

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

http://www.civilwar.org/educat...

The specific primary issue was whether or not slavery would be prohibited in new territories when they became states, changing the balance of power between slave-holding and non slave-holding states. Prior to the election of Lincoln, the balance was maintained by inducting one non slave-holding state and one slave-holding state at the same time (paired statehood grants).

The South was not fearful of the existing slave states losing their slaves, they were fearful in a change in relative power between the two power blocks, and the election of Lincoln made this inevitable.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was in fact a punitive action relative to the secessionists only, and only applied to the ten states then currently in rebellion. It is widely regarded as the proverbial "straw that broke the camels back", and was issued under the president's war powers, and thus necessarily excluded those areas not in rebellion. In other words, of the 4 million slaves currently held at the time, about 1 million of them were *not* freed by the proclamation, as they were within states not in open rebellion.

But nice try on your straw man argument.

Note: as a technical note, free persons who commit criminal acts *could* in fact be made slaves today through court action, since you may deny someone their liberty through due process of law. We just don't use this particular loophole within our justice system.

If the Interior Ministry is upset about disruption of commerce, perhaps they should crack down on the taxi drivers?

Once all the data is in the cloud... the only data breaches will be to the cloud itself. Because it becomes a tasty, tasty target.

I'm also positive that government regulators couldn't possibly find financial irregularities by grabbing you documents from the cloud service provider, since there's no such thing as contradictory laws which make it impossible to not be in violation of one or the other of them...

Yeah, I'm rather sympathetic with Samsung here. The actual problem is with idiotic updates that break all the stuff you've finally got fixed from the last time an update broke it.

An update should fix the stuff that's broken, not break the stuff that's fixed.

Maybe Nate Silver?

He has a site fivethirtyeight.com/ that interprets poll results, and other numbers in the news

Your model is basically saying that since the artists already did the work, "they're not losing any money or time" if somebody else gives away their music for free.

Yes, you can say that. After all, why should you ever pay any artist? They already did the work, so they aren't losing any money, right? People are merely using their work for free without paying.

Here's the problem: "recognition" doesn't pay bills. It's nice, it's flattering, it's great for the ego, and the net result is you starve. Apple's business model is that artists should be happy that Apple had decided to give their music away for free in order to promote Apple's new business, and they seem surprised that artists actually would prefer to be paid.

Here's a tip for you, for future reference in case it ever happens to you: when you're being told "you work for free, and maybe sometime later I'll pay you", no matter how good it sounds, the deal is always going to be to the advantage of the corporation getting the free work, and not necessarily for you.

Well, Apple backed down, at least a little. Good for them. Horray for Taylor Swift.

Saying that big record labels give artists a lousy deal is not a justification for Apple to want artists to give their work away for free to advertise Apple's music service.

So, does Apple's free trial period have a "if you're not satisfied, return all the music you got for free without paying the artists" clause?

No.

in your metaphor, you're starting a housecleaning service, and you hire other people to clean houses. And your business model is that you don't pay these other people because you're giving your customers a three month free trial of your housecleaning service.

The people you hire should be happy! They're helping you set up your business!

Of course, once your business is set up the people who got your music for free won't buy your music (because they just got it for free) but, hey, recognition! That's just like money, almost.

Isn't it?

But you do get paid. They don't say "work for us for three month for free, then if we decide keep you on, we will start paying you."

Apple isn't saying "we'll pay you in three months". They're saying "in order to promote our brand, you won't get paid at all for the stuff of yours we sell.

It is anonymous coward assholes like you, who think that art, and writing, and music-- in short, creative endeavours in general-- is not work, and shouldn't need to be paid for, who are the problem, not the solution.

Yes, I am aware that it is now possible to copy stuff for almost no money.