* At the request of the FBI I'm inserting a backdoor
* if you notice this code please wait 10 years before saying anyting about it
* And of FBI requested code
* thank you very much
at apple they don't have black suits only black turtleneks
All said in the subject...
Actually the 2000 years old code was already very well tested and had been shared by all the mystics of previous times. With recurring small updates it is still used by mystics of current times. That code has little to do with the catholic church code that entered early alpha stage a few hundred years later when the religion was instituted. At that time the catholics used the original code (which, i'm sure, was open source) and branch it into a close source project diverting the original goal of the program (seek good for all people), into a new goal (good for us and that's it)!
You mean they select who is going to go through the full body scanner based on their personal preferences?
No it doesn't, microsoft apply for this one, not google
Actually I live happily (and debt free) without any credit card at all (never had one). But i agree with you that 3 or 4 choices of what by all practical purposes is a Cartel doesn't allow any room for free market pressure.
I really don't think the folks at wikileaks are coordinating the attach, probably some low brain supporter or someone trying to discredit wikileads. Best action for supporters of wikileaks is to cancel or stop using their mastercard, their paypal and their amazon account.
I don't know Assange nor I know much about him so i can't comment on the person but the information that is circulating from wikileaks is nothing new or odd or unexpected, anyone paying attention to international politics knew the substance of these documents if not the actual words used by such and such. What i find new and unexpected is that, possibly because of the way the materials were released, the mainstream press decided to publish and write long commentaries on them. Now that's new.
I'm not that sure, does the posting of the article to the non-profit website means that people that would have otherwise read it at the copyright owner site will go to the non-profit instead? Or does it mean that people that would have not been exposed to the article are going to be able to read it and learn something new? I think it would have been more polite to write one or two paragraphs about the article, post that in the non-profit site with a link to the full one, but i'm not sure that impolite is the same as breaking copyright law.
you forgot: d. people that place their phone in the back pocket of their jeans and the sit down, just to relax...
but based on this report they can now charge you 87% more if you own a iphone 4
While i agree with you, looking from another perspective there could be a old man sitting on a chair just in front of his house, he spends his time looking at the people passing by. Noting the time, the recurrence, the way they are dressed, who do they walk by with, etc... He could infer a great lot of information about them. He never asked them for the permission to look at them or to gather information about them, but should he? Is this information theirs or his? Maybe both? I don't have a solution but I think the problem is that i (like you probably) don't trust what these company are going to do with the information they gather. I have the intuition (i say intuition because i can't pinpoint the reasons) that the amount of information collected and interpreted corresponds to the amount of power that company will have and i'm not happy to give it away that way... But the problem is not only one of personal privacy, it is one of social privacy.
never heard of it, you are telling me I have a fifty fifty chance my computer comes with some kind of light saber?
According to your reasoning about A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki) and B (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427730/) the USA should not be allowed to have nuclear Weapons.