I suspect the problem is that you also associate e-mail addresses with your iMessages. If someone sends to your e-mail address instead of your phone number, it can't fall back to SMS. I don't know why it would say "Delivered"--and I suspect it doesn't. But the problem in this case would be the sender not using the phone number to try to send the message.
If the law didn't specify what "partial nudity" means, then I think the ruling is perfectly valid. What is partial nudity? Can someone go out in public "partially nude?" Can they be arrested for that?
I don't think it's fair to use one the standard differently. A person should not be partially nude while out in public.
The error here is not on the judge's part, but on the legislature's. If the legislature had better defined their terms, there wouldn't be ambiguity. If they had specified that these kinds of photos were illegal, there wouldn't be a question here. They did not, and so the judges (who are upholding the law, not their opinions of it) made the right call.
Even if it means a pervert is still on the streets.
No, you've got it wrong. The women were considered fully clothed because no private parts were exposed. Partial nudity requires "private" parts to be uncovered, not any part of your body. That's precisely why this guy got off--despite his creepy photograph, he wasn't photographing partially nude people--he was photographing fully clothed ones. The law (apparently) doesn't criminalize photographing fully clothed people.
You can opt-out, certainly. How many will? How many will not just hit the "update all" button if they do opt out?
Lastpass doesn't have the same problem; you don't need anything messy to do the client-side encryption and decryption. There is no server-side 'option' for Lastpass, nor would anyone have a reason to use it if there was one, really.
How do you know? I mean really, how do you know they aren't sending up your passphrase?
Even if they're not now, how do you know they won't? If TLA government agency asks them to, do you think they wouldn't issue an app update that sent them your passphrase? Assuming you trust them today, will you decline every app update?
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but they're valid points. If the submitter is in an industry where "obviously" he can't use Lastpass, then I'm assuming these are operationally valid concerns.
And this is why I'd really like to see Internet providers become common carriers. The Internet has become much too important to let squabbles like this endanger it.
Well most jailbreaks require plugging your device in. That means that your exposure is pretty small and there won't be drive-by exploits like this one.
And Apple may not support the 3GS anymore, but their support record is still stronger than most android phone manufacturers.
If there's a run on banks, getting all of your money back instead of slightly less than half probably isn't going to do you much good anyway.
If the CEO's bonus is tied to performance (it often isn't--instead it's usually written into his contract and so really is just formalized compensation--but let's pretend), then being able to do the same or more with less overhead would be a reason to give a bonus.
It's really quite a bit like herd immunity.
Slashdot hasn't been the same in a very, very long time. But I try not to judge people by their UID.
Well, he's a sci-fi author, so he's probably spent a lot of time thinking about disruptive technology. He's a geek at heart, with a sysadmin and programming background, so his opinion probably isn't any worse than most of Slashdot's subscribers. On the economy? Well, none of us are probably very qualified to discuss it.
I would highly recommend his Laundry series, though.
The intent of a law is regularly subverted for the letter of it. I read the law and know the intent. Doesn't mean a damned thing.
I wouldn't give money to Sony, even if the Vita was free. But your point is taken
I think that what they sent out was a bundle which included the purchased game, so the retailer probably owes them nothing.
Oh how horrible for you.
First, this is not "unsolicited merchandise", because you did order something. So it's not a "gift" (as it would be if it were truly "unsolicited").
Is this so clear-cut? The law says it is: "merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient." It does not seem to differentiate mistakes. That is, none of these people ordered a Vita bundle--they ordered something different. Therefore the merchandise of a Vita bundle was mailed without prior request or consent. What was requested was a particular game.
Unless there is prior case law, I don't think anyone can really say whether the particular order (or an identical one taking place in the US) would qualify as "mailed without prior expressed request."
I'm referencing http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title39/html/USCODE-2011-title39-partIV-chap30-sec3009.htm which doesn't have any obligation to the recipient--and expressly says so: "Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender"
Nothing in this code indicates that you can charge for storage should you return the item, either.
Is there a different law I'm unfamiliar with that you're referring to?