Maybe if you pulled your fingers out of your ass you could actually try to do something and beat the Jews at their own game, you know, by being smarter than them. Or are you just asserting they're smarter than you? In that case, I'd say they deserve to be in these places.

/trollFeeding

I can't find the article anymore, but it's pretty much everywhere (not in the details I remember though): http://www.designntrend.com/ar...

"This is the reason why a lot of people are very unhappy."

I thought it was the movement of little green pieces of paper. Which is strange because, on the whole, the little green pieces of paper are not unhappy.

Perhaps it was a bad idea to come down out of the trees after all.

The iPhone 5S being the most sold phone all over the world every month since its release...

But you have to admit that apple is losing market share to Samsung, although the trend is slowing down now.

Well, they may be self contained (which is not true because NIC drivers interact directly with the network stack for example) and small, but they are also highly untestable and undocumented.

What I see is a stack to fix and a continuous stream of drivers to write. The one shot operation is bound to be cheaper on the long term.

Don't you think it's easier and cheaper to optimize the network stack of Linux rather than writing tons of hardware drivers for FreeBSD? Hardware which, most of the time, will be undocumented. Furthermore, when you change your servers, yay, more drivers to write...

The iPhone would actually be a more effective test because iPhones tend to be identical regardless of what carrier you are on. I'm extremely surprised they did not test the iPhone for this reason.

People agree to pay for things outside of their control all the time. Consider the contract you have with your auto insurance company, for example, in which they agree to pay in the event that you get into an accident. If you agree to the terms of your own free will, in the absence of fraud or duress, you should assume that they're binding, at least morally if not legally. The real problem would be if they were trying to fine the people posting negative reviews directly, when they weren't a party to the contract.

I see no reason why this contract shouldn't be considered binding—which is not to say that I think it's a good idea. I find it a bit surprising that they still have any customers after pulling a stunt like this, which was a clear sign of desperation in its own right. One doesn''t go to such lengths to suppress negative reviews unless one has something to hide.

Don't they realize that a policy like this is more likely to SCARE potential customers away than to help their reputation?

Do these idiots think this through at all before coming up with crap like this?

Yes, but beyond your email address, google doesn't know who you are. If you have a gmail account, chances are they have the last 150 IP address you accessed the internet with, which is more than enough to identify you with a proper court order.

;)

In that particular case, perhaps, but they have their own interests and obligations outside the case which may be harmed by turning over the documents. For example, in this case compliance with the order could conceivably place Microsoft in violation of foreign data privacy laws, which this court cannot grant immunity from as it lacks jurisdiction.

Given that you're compelled to comply regardless, under threat of more or less whatever punishment the court happens to deem fit, there isn't much scope for negotiation. The court holds all the cards. You can ask for consideration, but there isn't much you can do about it if they refuse.

In case it wasn't obvious, I am wholly opposed to dragging third-parties into a case against their will when they haven't even been accused of any wrongdoing. That includes both compulsory testimony and the involuntary production of evidence. The courts exist to resolve disputes and protect rights, not to create new disputes and violate rights.

That sounds like a great idea. Since you're coding for the least common denominator, you obviously get none of the benefits of the target language, while still suffering from all of its issues, plus whatever additional issues are introduced by your under-spec'd and idiosyncratic "meta language" and "meta compiler".

To top it off, no one else will ever be able to maintain or build on what you write, so you're stuck with that job forever, unable to move on to something better—or at least until TPTB wake up and realize that it's far more trouble than it's worth and throw it out in favor of something which is properly idiomatic and standardized and which doesn't make them wholly dependent on you and your "meta compiler".

No thanks.

I'm not sure that's exactly the same thing. First, perhaps I'm just reading too much into your wording, but it sounds like you would have to admit guilt, as opposed to the court ruling against you for failure to comply while you continue to maintain your innocence. Second, and more importantly, only the defendant can "stipulate in court to the prosecution's allegations". What about subpoenas issued to third parties who would otherwise not have anything at stake? Like Microsoft in this case—they aren't the defendant, they're just holding the data.

The only reasonable way to handle this, so far as I can see, would be for the court to order the actual defendant in the case to direct Microsoft to turn over the data, or in extreme cases to do so in the defendant's stead. Microsoft would then be following the directions of their customer according to the terms of their contract, and not under the duress of a court order.

And this is pretty much the entire problem, right here. The very concept of "contempt of court"—arbitrary punishments handed out by judges at their sole discretion, with no consideration for proportionality or due process—runs counter to the principle of rule of law. I have no problem with a court saying that if you refuse to turn over relevant documents then they will be assumed to be as damaging as possible to your case. I do have a problem with them saying that if you don't turn over the documents you'll be subject to potentially indefinite jail time and fines in excess of whatever damages you were accused of inflicting on the other party.

Well, that and the fact that they seem to be trying to apply subpoena rules to a search warrant. A search warrant doesn't impose any obligations beyond staying out of law enforcement's way while they search the place. A subpoena, on the other hand, is an order for someone within the court's jurisdiction to testify or produce evidence. This is being described as a search warrant for reasons that are not at all clear to me, but the court apparently wants the company to perform the search itself and produce evidence as if it were subpoenaed.