You should've went for the gold and said... "Being a Glasshole?"
Basically, it was a pissing match like people claim it was. Something that USED to be called out on the carpet over- because it's violating common carrier status that the jokers in question all have and alternately want and don't want. (They don't want the regulation, but they want the shield from vicarious liability from their customers' actions...)
The biggest problem without them is you'd end up having a tragedy of the commons. How would any of them intercommunicate to allow the Internet to be.
One of the things you can do is harshly punish the ISPs in question when they play games like this. One of the things they have right now is "common carrier" status. That's a liability shield against all sorts of things that your customers might do that's illegal. You could be held vicariously liable if you don't have that status and they commit acts of sedition, copyright infringement, etc. You used to run the very real risk of losing that status as a provider of services if you pulled a stunt like this- which kept them mostly from pulling crap like this. We need to bring that back, to be honest.
Because it's been a problem up to this point...not the corporate repository- just about any twit could make an installer/injector that was transparently fire and forget for Windows. Because of the design, it's a bit harder with most Linux distributions whether you're talking about RPM, DEB, or any other packaging system. But, for windows, whether it was GUI or not, it's just simply there. If it wasn't, you wouldn't need AVG/Avast/Avira/etc. or MalwareBytes/etc.
As such, it's a joke. Not liking it? Get Microsoft to get their act together or switch OSes...
Heh... How long did it take them to get to that? 20 *YEARS* (RHL 1.0 - November 1994) now?
Seriously Microsoft. Took you long enough.
Depends on which classes of apps you're talking about there. There's more than just games that use NDK code. That stuff..you're screwed on unless the vendor gets around to making an X86 version.
This is Intel trying to stay relevant against ARM...which is encroaching on their server space. If Intel weren't pushing all the green blow around for the vendors to take up, subsidizing these things, you'd not see X86 devices in the Android space.
Indeed. In fact, they've not been enforceable for over 145 years per the Fourteenth Amendment and Marbury v. Madison (Anything repugnant to the Constitution is void from it's beginnings...)
Precisely. There's several copies of a prominent law professor's lecture on the subject and spells out PRECISELY why you don't do things like that.
Now, the burning question would be, "how did they get access to his encrypted system files?"- without a warrant, they're just as screwed in light of the recent Supreme Court rulings. You need a warrant for those things- and you need to state you're looking for a specific on them before they can legitimately reach the conclusion the Mass Supreme Court arrived at. Without that, it's just like the Fourth Amendment violation I experienced about 5 years ago. No *VALID* warrant? No case. No seizure allowed.
If so, it's not hard to have them get a warrant that specifies this, not a court order to relinquish the password. They're distinctly differing notions- and the Judges there overstepped their authority. If it's legit, they could've issued a warrant for specific information and as a part thereof, compelled the unlock of the secured device for that specific information. Since they didn't...doesn't meet the sniff test in light of current precedent.
Heh... Actually, that line of bullshit might be at risk with the recent unanimous decision that law enforcement needed a warrant for mucking about on a defendent's phone. Basically, this is the same thing and it's expected to be overturned by the SCOTUS if it gets before them.
And, in recent times (as in within THIS month...) the Supreme Court of the US handed down a UNANIMOUS decision that they had to get a warrant to go digging about on a defendant's phone- this is the same thing.
You have to have a legitimate reason and a warrant to do this. It's expected that this will go to the Supreme Court and be overturned just like the mobile phone story went down.
Your reading is flawed. Hint for you: Militia means group of able-bodied people, not what you think it means. If you're an adult US Citizen...you're that "Militia" they talk to in that part of the Amendment. Using it to exclude and preclude ownership and bearing is to misunderstand quite a bit of the writings of the times ON TOP of misunderstanding the Constitution.
It shouldn't. But oh noes...we have to ban it because it made it "easy" and it's this 3D thingy we completely don't understand at all...
Can't say that I blame you. I was contemplating maybe helping get a couple of titles I'm associated with onto the platform- but after getting one...heh...