I came here to comment, but this was better and more "on target" than anything I was going to blather. Good comment.
Carriers will love it too, since they'll once again make the device owner beholden to them for the "magic keys".
Pretty clearly the AC was employing a literary device, "hyperbole".
I would posit that this case does NOT reflect a "philosophy of selfishness", but instead a "philosophy of greed". Often the two, selfishness and greed, are conflated. I often read treatises dedicated to trashing Ayn Rand for her promotion of "selfishness", with the writers either cluelessly or maliciously misrepresenting her position. The "philosophy of selfishness" does not entail stealing others' ideas, failing to credit and compensate them; in fact, that is theft, a hallmark of greed, and the very kind of behavior that Rand attributed to the "takers". Selfishness is good, it is what is driving Mr. Dzamba to vociferously defend his work. It is even what is partially driving the Hult team. However, and given McGill's Office of Sponsored Research findings, the Hult team has veered into Greed as it has seemingly decided to take from Mr. Dzamba what it did NOT work to produce. Just as with Reardon metal, this design does not belong to them.
What I find surprising [although with Mr. Clinton's name attached perhaps not so] is that the Hult International Business School would award such a large price ($1M USD) to a project where the central design itself is so seemingly encumbered. One would think that a basic tenet of their Prize would either be outright originalism or profound derivation. Nothing less should be worth $1,000,000.
Insightful? You've got to be shitting me. Only to the extent of this current "privacy" stupidity.
Does he gouge out the eyeballs of all his guests and fellow pint-guzzlers, lobotomize them? "Insightful". The label itself is even ironic. HUMANS ARE ENDOWED WITH RECORDING DEVICES, MORONS.
The First Amendment of the Constititution declares the fundamental right to "record" and playback life's "experiences"...the fact that video cameras, tape recorders, photography, tvs, phonographs, etc did not exist in 1789 notwithstanding. The "freedom of the press" had nothing to do with "journalists" or hardware, it has everything to do with your individual right to describe, via available technologies (pen, paper, print, ink, paint, brush), and disseminate those experiences.
I can't wait to read the paranoid blatherings when the idiots realize there are people who exist who enjoy photographic memories...or when they find out there are creative types so skilled with the pen and brush they can accurately describe anything...or OMG those two types would ever end up together! Oh my! (The inability to -think- rationally seems to be the bigger danger, methinks.)
I did not RTFA, nor do I want to.
But I have an awesome mental picture of this "damn fine" fighter jet...something akin to the Wagon Queen Family Truckster...with wings.
And I don't want to sully that with another 'fake' reality. Really hope it is painted in metallic paint, though.
I know, I know..."wait until ya FLY it!"
From CNN, what did you expect?
Although this discovery does not explain all violent crime, it seems to indicate something that will need, should need addressed: very likely none of the CRIMINALS during this time voluntarily or willing took lead to induce their psychosis. They were poisoned; by their environment, by society, by ignorance. At the very least, this raises a interesting "mens rea" situation. Certainly, if someone suffered a blackout from fever induced by severe food poisoning while driving home from the restaurant, ran off the road and killed someone, we wouldn't lock them in a cage and call them "animals". However this study is basically saying that very large numbers of people were inadvertently poisoned, made sick, causing neurological damage, and they were then treated to some of the worst, inhumane treatment (prison, electrocution, lethal injection) that any ill human being has ever endured.
So the question is: when is America going to start realizing that prison as a "deep dank hole" is an inhumane basis of punishment rooted more in religious dogma (making people "suffer" for their sins) than in true causality--neurological (and quite inadvertent) defect? Is there any reason for prisons to be such cold, horrific places? Certainly we can look back on the asylums of the early half of the 20th Century with contempt; yet we, societally, accept prison rape and beatings, isolation and estrangement as fodder for comedy. I am no advocate of a plush lifestyle for those convicted of horrific crimes, but neither am I tolerant of such treatment of those who are neurologically incapable of making better, more rational decisions. We need to STOP putting people in prison for stupid crimes (drugs, financial crimes) and confine the use of "corrections" budgets to making safe, healthy places for the sick to live out their lives under proper (medical, if necessary) care.
Hope he's the right guy. If not, even if he is a piece of shit otherwise (and all signs point to "Yes!"), he's about to have to endure a shit storm of epic proportion fall upon him. And that would not be fair...
If he is the right guy...I will enjoy watching him self-destruct.
The job of judges -IS-, absolutely, to apply the intent of applicable statue to the changing of the times. Clearly, the statute was intended to secure communication while in transit and where it is stored AFTER the traditionally defined (in wiretap terms) concept of "delivery"it was admittedly written in a time where the download and RE-upload of communication for "backup protection" was commonplace. However, technology has shifted; there is no longer the need to download and re-upload, what GETS downloaded is the "transient", temporary state. In wiretap parlance, once a communique is delivered, it is the responsibility of the addressee to henceforth protect it. (Same concept with a physical letter!) In traditional email systems, wiretap would not apply if the Wife had sneakily dug into the MBOX or PST files on the guys computer (because he was responsible for securing those files). But current technology performs both the "backup protection" storage AND viewer task simultaneously; the need for the addressee to take physical possession of the communique is negated.
These judges muffed it. Clearly, anyone who uses and relies upon web-based (transient) interaction for email purposes is EXPLICITLY relying on the storage of that communication for purposes of backup protection. Otherwise, the providers of the service would just throw it away and save the bits, or never provide a Trash.
Also, wat gets labeled "judicial activism" is when Judges creatively use legislation to either bolster or deny behavior in tangential and non-intentional ways. Like applying DUI laws to bicycles. Clearly, when the 'D' in DUI stands for "DRIVING", and the code is enforced under MOTOR VEHICLE CODE, being a drunk moron on a bike shouldn't come under that statute.
Screw "expert tribunal", fight to the death! Each side puts up 12 contenders (to tie it to the jury system), twelve "angry" men (or women, whichever). Then, fight it out Kirk & Spock style, ala koon-ut-kal-if-fee in 'Amok Time'. Damages are based on the number of surviving "jurors".
Because otherwise, the "experts" will just get bought off like every other "regulatory" body in the US and it won't be any fun for anyone. I'd be OK if at least one of the jurors was a VP or higher.
That "defense" seems to be worse than the Dallas Cowboys Defense of last year (excepting DeMarcus Ware...he's the MAN!). So AT&T -ADMITS- they're blocking capriciously and discriminatively, but then says "We're doing nothing wrong."?
I'm not sure what violating net neutrality looks like then, in these guys' minds. So Comcast can block Hulu, that's just fine, but only allow it for their Triple Play customers, since they're trying to reduce congestion???
BZZZZZZT! Wrong answer, jerk.
I don't *WANT* unlimited data. And the question should be invalidated because NOBODY really should want it, since the term "unlimited" is undefined in a relativistic sense. Your "unlimited" vs Google's "unlimited" are two entirely different things. Much less, the average -consumer- vs average -business- user likely has different data usage needs.
Instead, the question should be two fold: what do consumers consider a *reasonable* price and what do we consider *reasonable* data usage for that price. Clearly the providers have done a HORRIBLE job at defining both parameters. So we should step up and at least give them a reasonable target.
To get things started, I'd like to see at least three tiers for individuals (unlike the "Unlimited Messaging or BUST!" craze taking over America): 250MB, 1 GB, 3GB. My price points would be $10, $15, $30. The $15 and $30 tiers would include WiFi tethering if the device has the feature. Customers should also be able to purchase blocks of data (based on their tier size and price) that then roll-over, with a 90 or 120 day expiration.
Why do I price the $15/1GB tier in such a way? To promote LESS data usage, but within REASONABLE limits. 200/300MB is too small for active smart phone users who aren't on WiFi pretty much full time. So that price is pretty much for the people who are stupid cheap and probably aren't using their devices ANYHOW, they're just forced to get a data plan. It is a throwaway plan. The carriers have already decided that 2GB is a max, they want users to use less than that (and the "3GB" plans are throttled joke, just a way to push users off "Unlimited"). But if data usage is too HIGH, we need to carrot-and-stick users into using an amount of data better for everyone. And considering the "average" usage in the US is about 800MB, I think we should promote keeping to that for the time being until usage patterns change or the carriers step forward and stop complaining about "bandwidth shortages".
(Oh, and as an aside, something I have *YET* to see mentioned by the tech rags: the "unlimited talk and text" thing is a result of the carriers getting us primed for LTE Advanced rollout, where voice gets shifted from circuit-switched to packet-switched VoIP. They *have* to get us paying for each voice-capable handset by then, since then the average consumer will finally see how little "data" their calling really required.)
Next we'll have an informer tell us that Mr. Jaffe has been busy secretly buying up property in Iowa.
It is mildly hilarious that you attempt to ridicule "libertarian" by espousing a completely incorrect stereotype of it.