I'm not saying I like it, and in fact I said I don't like it... but the case law is pretty clear and you're welcome to see for yourself:

Smith v. Maryland - 442 U.S. 735 (1979) AND here's the wiki

It has been this way since 1979: there is no legitimate expectation of privacy regarding specific information when you knowingly give the information to a third party.

Its not a crock and I didn't make it up, as my references bear out. And again I stand by assessment that Slashdot has gone to the dogs and the idiots posting these days don't know much of anything.

wiki

This case makes it clear that reasonable expectation of privacy regarding location is invalidated by carrying a cell phone because location information is given to a third party, the phone company. Thus there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding location.

A strong case is already made in case law (more or less) that if an individual carries a cell phone they have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their location because they give their location information to a third party, the phone company. So the feds and the cops are foolish because they had no reason to lie and would have obtained their search warrants legally by telling the whole truth about their use of Stingrays.

But I don't think so, (and I don't want it to be so) because it fails the second part of Justice Harlan's test in Katz v US 389 U.S. 347 (1967).... because society at large would likely deem a persons expectation of privacy to be reasonable regarding their location (especially if out of sight, inside a private home) regardless of carrying a cell phone... because cell phones are ubiquitous, and the existence of cell phones should not invalidate the entire concept of reasonable expectation of privacy. But that's just my opinion, and, again, a strong dissenting case already exists in case law, and is the law of the land.

HOWEVER
the issue here is cops are lying to judges under the direction of federal agents in order to obtain search warrants

That's bad, and judges should rightly be pissed off about it. But no citizens' rights were violated. The police already had the evidence that the individuals they were seeking already committed a crime... the arrest warrant was already obtained, and they're just searching for the suspects, not using this technology to oppress innocent civilians.

The real problem is not that the government is out of control. The government does not move with a single mind... it is aggregate and it is not after anyone but criminals. The real problem is that citizens, including everyone posting here, are uneducated blathering idiots, and do not understand their rights, and do not even realize that they have already forfeited their rights by previous actions, such as owning and carrying a cell phone. We fucked up. We let the steady advancement of technology eat our rights because we were not engaged and did not notice, and now its a bit late to start blaming anyone but ourselves.

That's a kinda silly thing to say. Anytime a problem comes up like this, it creates an opportunity for vendors. In the game development world, you have toolkits like Unity. Xamarin is already helping developers port C# code to OS X. And there are and will be lots of other solutions.

And Apple isn't even abandoning support for Objective-C. Nobody is being forced to code in Swift.

But what sense would that make? Why not just say, "Somebody else will have to implement UEFI support, because I'm Audi 5000" and abandon the project where it sits?

The fallacy that you are promoting as evidence that AI is possible or inevitable is known as argumentum ex silentio. And contrary to your unsupported beliefs, and much to the disappointment of sci fi writers and nerds everywhere, what we actually know is that it is not possible.

Yeah, but isn't it idiotic that to stop everything and shut down your computer, you clicked on "Start"?

That might be nice, but it's not hard to disable all of that stuff from the options. I use Word all day, every single day, and I don't ever have to wrestle with it. It does auto-correct some of my typos, too, for which I'm thankful.

Methinks you need to go back and watch Empire. There's a whole section in the middle with this little green guy that basically is all about your question.

No they were there on purpose, and they were all real, too. They weren't added in with CG, Abrams actually had people hiding around the set to shine lights into the lenses.

Why is your security code depending on undefined behavior? And why would you port to other architectures to serve as canaries for the architecture you're presumably running on? How about a test suite instead? Do you you tie your shoes in the morning, or do you have an elaborate Rube Goldberg machine try to will them onto your feet?

GIMPshop is BACK!!!

No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. Very few black hats have chops. What white hats have is restraint. By and large, they're script kitties... as in utilizing a script kit, and it takes no skill to run a script. (yeah, I know everyone else says "script kiddies" because they think they're young... NOPE... script kitties are OLD and LAZY. The actual kids have WAY more skills than script kitties,... its ridiculous!).

Then what you want is an early 80's cracker (or programmer). DId everything in assembly. And none got in trouble, because copyright infringement is a victimless civil offence, not a criminal one. Also, either no one cared or no one understood, because there was no money involved, like the overseas DVD pirates today; so ignored except when you fired up your game and looked at the title splash where it was preferred to take credit for whatever, transferring from cartridge to disk, or removing copy protection, and were at times a low kb demo was inserted.

And as everything is back compiled into assembly today, the code at that level is now a complete mess... utterly inscrutable. Back then, the great programmers were "real" men... and authored their wares originally in assembly. That's why it was possible to crack it, because it made sense.

The trouble with old hardware is not whether it works or not. The trouble with it is, as soon as you touch it to see if it works or not, you've already spent more than the computer is worth. If you spend more than a few minutes with it, its like dumping new gold plated rims and a new suspension on a car that is now worth exactly the cost of used rims and a used suspension.

The days of reincarnating old hardware are over (except for the essential computer and system historians out there, who spend their "free" time resurrecting ancient gems for posterity and because its fun... please continue to rock on), and they were over a decade ago or more. The way to go about getting the poor masses to use computers is to make cheap new computers... which they're already doing.

Poor people don't want your garbage, whether it works or not. Poor people aren't stupid or uneducated; they're merely not rich or middle class.

Hackers, even the black-hatted ones, are way too honest for their line of work. They have a lot to learn from the software and video pirates of the 1980's

THiS PoST CRaCKeD By THe aMaZiNG WoNDuMuNCHeR!!

I see we have a seasoned computer scientist in the field!

/sarcasm wtf

FYI graphic designers calling themselves developers develop websites. And they're great at it. Computer scientists should stick what they're good at, which has nothing to do with markup languages nor computers nor programming.

Real computer scientists do one, the other, or both:

1) RECKONING

2) SCIENCE