The lightning adapter is Apple - not sure if any knockoffs exist at this point. But, apparently, it depends on the Alpine deck you have, and the cable used to connect to that. I guess it's complicated.

The adapter, when used with the car head units designed for 5 - 6 gen iPods, does not supply power, and that IS a MAJOR issue!

The solution is NOT a $30 adapter, it's a $250 iPod classic!!

Except that unlike the old cable, with the adapter it doesn't provide a charge, only the connection. So it drains the battery as it's used, then I have to charge it by connecting it to the car charger. There doesn't seem to be a way to connect it to the stereo and charger at the same time, at least with the adapter.

Really renders the whole thing useless. The cheapest fix is to return this iPod, and buy an iPod classic for about $250. Way more capacity than I need, and more money than I wanted to spend, but it does have the 30-pin connector like my old (!!) 5th gen, so hopefully it would work the same...

Well, it could have, but after investing in a head unit with the expensive licensed connector for my iPod, then finding when my out-of-warranty iPod died that my new one would not work with the very expensive head unit any more because they changed the connector ... well.

As the saying goes: "Screw me once, shame on me, screw me twice, Fuck you Apple - NEVER AGAIN!!"

If a business fails to show profits for more than five consecutive years, it is classified by the IRS as a hobby. In other words, you are indulging in this particular activity even if money is being collected. There are of course exceptions to every rule and of course piles of common law precedence to consider as well.

After a lot of soul searching whether or not I should actually honor this obvious attempt at trolling with a comment, I think I should, lest someone actually take it serious and believe it.

Allow me to take you on an excursion into the world of security. Before you get your hopes up, it's not as glamorous or kinda-sorta-shady-sinister-blackhat as you might think. But I'll try to make it as interesting as it can be.

Part of security are audits. Audits are, in a nutshell, attempts to find out whether there are weaknesses in the surface you're auditing. For example, you prod at a server, check its ports, make sure that everything that answers does so in a way that cannot be exploited, and so on.

Those that at least dabbled in security will know about the various "boxes" used to describe the "rules of engagement" in such an audit. Most commonly known, I'd guess, are "black" and "white" box tests. In a "black box" test, you get no or very little information about your target and your task is to find out whatever you can find about it. A "white box" test is the exact opposite, where you get full disclosure of your target's makeup, e.g. what services are running, at what patch level, often even what purpose they serve and what department they belong to, and so on.

One might now think that the more "normal", more "useful" test is a black box test. Because, hey, if I tell you everything, what the hell would you test? But, know what? A black box tests is something that you'd do to test the tester's ability, not that of your target. With a black box test you can rather find out just how much the guy you hired to do your audit actually knows about the whole shit.

If you actually want to test the target, you disclose about any information there is. That might sound odd now, but when you think about it, it starts to make a lot of sense. This information can be available to a potential attacker. A disgruntled ex-employee could have that information. Or someone who spends a lot of time social engineering and prodding can gain it somehow. Assuming that you could increase your security by withholding information from a potential attacker is at best giving you a false sense of security because you can NEVER actually say with at least a semblance of certainty that a potential attacker CAN NOT have that information. Like I said before, all it takes is a pissed off ex admin and this attacker would have ALL the information.

And it's rather trivial to sell information these days...

Now, what does this have to do with the question open vs. closed source?

It means that just because YOU do not have the information does not mean that your attacker does not have it. Closed source is akin to the black box in the aforementioned example, open source the white box. When you audit closed source, you will learn more about the abilities of your auditor rather than about the security level of the software you audit.

Yes, of course the security of your language (as well as the rest of your environment) matters. But what's way more important is what kind of devs you have. No matter how secure anything is, if the person supposed to use it does not know about its security pitfalls, do you think that's increasing the security?

Security is by definition the minimum of the security your technology offers and the security your personnel offers. The minimum. Not the average. The same applies to OSs, too. You can have the most secure OS in the world, if you lack the admin to secure it, you're no better off than with an OS that has shabby security itself.

Your security is way more dependent on the personnel you have, and the ability and expertise they have with the different technologies. Simple scenario: Take an admin that knows OS-A like the back of his hand and can somehow kinda-sorta get OS-B to run. OS-A has a few security holes (that the admin all knows about, including their workarounds) while OS-B is absolutely tight but our admin doesn't know it too well.

Which one do you think will, administered by said admin, be more secure?

It's the same with programming languages. C does have its security issues, but a good C programmer knows why he should not put input on the stack and why he should include sanity checks on every input, especially if is of variable length. Some other language might not have that possibly dangerous pit, but there are very, very few languages (outside those fields where security matters and money doesn't) that have none.

What would you prefer your devs to develop in? A language they know, including all its slings and errors, or a potentially more secure one the pits of which your devs don't know?

Oh, no, it's nothing to worry about. They only use that against Drug Kingpins!

Oh, judges decided long ago that due process does not mean "having your day in court." A bureaucracy simply has to publish their administrative procedure, which includes some provision where they are supposed to read any letter sent in by the defendant, and the administrative procedure is automatically considered to be all the "due process" required.

Actually, no you can't. They can seize all of your bank accounts and assets (including your home, if you owe more than $5,000), but they cannot jail you.

But, they can jail you for tax evasion and tax fraud. Those are both felonies.

From Title 26:

1. Willful failure to file a tax return is a misdemeanor pursuant to IRC 7203. In cases where an overt act of evasion occurred, willful failure to file may be elevated to a felony under IRC 7201, Tax Evasion.
2. If failure to file a return is fraudulent, a civil penalty known as the "fraudulent failure to file (FFTF) penalty" may apply under IRC 6651(f). This penalty may apply to all returns due after 12/31/1989 (determined without regard to extensions).
3. The civil fraud penalty may be applied to all returns required to be filed on or before 12/31/1989.

Hear, hear! This is always my default position - vote for the non-incumbent. There are over a dozen senators and more congressmen that have held office for at least 30 years! Way past time for a clean up.

Really? How about video footage of the standoff?

It's from InfoWars, so you could certainly say it's from a right wing nut job, but it's still a true story.

Obviously not true, or they would not have needed legislation to start doing it.

It certainly is in the United States. You cannot go after an heir for their ancestors debts. Ever. You can sue based on property owner liability issues, based on ownership at the time, but that still has nothing to do with "inheritors" or relatives, just the current property owner.

How so?

Again, small fraction of people. We're far from a small fraction of people having issues with the 8.1 Upgrade/Update/servicepack/bullshitword-du-jour.