Similarly, intelligent design is an uninteresting, unimportant subject compared with accepted science facts. Obviously, intelligent designers are the most knowledgeable about their own claims, but they shouldn't be contributing articles about themselves - that would just be adverts for their cause - making their cause seem bigger and more important than it is to attract new followers and stay in the news.
There's an argument to be made that new articles about a company should be *creatable* only by third parties without a connection to the subject, who can judje if creating a page is actually meaningful or desirable. Most companies, especially the unknown ones, would then never get an article. Only once an article about a company already exists does it make sense for that company to submit edits for facts.
It's about time America started acting like America again.
I dunno, making grand plans and all that is great, but after the *actual* work gets outsourced to China, how do we know they'll be *really* wearing USA T-shirts when they step on Mars on our behalf?
You appear to confuse convenient abstractions, whose truth or falsity must await a decisive experiment, with scientific laws that have already been tested. The latter, once tested, do no change, and are not repealed. The former are undetermined, until a test addresses them for the first time.
All your so-called contradictions are of this type. It's an easy mistake for non-scientists to make, because scientists often write about assumptions as if they were fact, just to explore their consequences. But every scientist keeps a mental table of what's been experimentally verified, and what's as yet undetermined.
And that's Science too, BTW.
The philosophical underpinnings of science have advanced since then and the term law is no longer used.
By whom? Postmodern philosophers who live on the sidelines of Science and write papers about epistemological impossibilities? There used to be a philosopher called Zeno who believed that motion is impossible. The world ignored him.
Richard Feynman had a great quote that's quite apt in this regard: "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds".
If you're a scientist doing actual Science today, then Laws exist. In fact, plenty of Laws exist. Plenty of Settled Science exists. There's always room for improvement, and plenty of things we don't know, but the new things we learn cannot contradict the past things we already learned. They can only polish the details.
To take an analogy. Past laws of Science are like a movie (representing reality) shown in DVD resolution. New Science can increase the resolution of the same movie to 1080p. You'll see more details more clearly, and you'll recognize how the old DVD resolution was sort of fuzzy in some places. But the movie remains the same, it's just more precise.
This is exactly what Apple are asking for is this case - proof of ownership, and the standard legal verification of the will.
Then either TFA is not truthful, or you're wrong. According to TFA, Apple are asking for a court order to prove that the mother was the original owner.
Reading TFA's summary, "We've provided the death certificate, will and solicitor's letter but it wasn't enough". "were asked to provide written consent for the device to be unlocked".
Anyway, this horse is pretty much dead by now, there's little point in beating it further.
Now assume that I inherit my father's estate and I add a stolen safe into the possessions, also made by SafeCo. What happens if they unlock that for me without a court order?
If it's a stolen safe, it's not yours. (I assume it's not your late father's since if you inherit it it would be yours). So it's registered with someone other than you or your late father's. So SafeCo don't need a court order to know not to unlock it.
Now assume that you inherit your father's estate and one of those possessions is an ipad, made by Apple. Now it's up to Apple to unlock your ipad, since they have your father's details on file, so you have a right to it.
No need for a court order either way, just common sense.
And turning them off doesn't take just consent, but also a password.
And *that* is both bad and irresponsible engineering. Now you're getting it.
What is all this garbage? It was locked with the owner's consent. The owner unfortunately did not think to leave the keys with her bequest.
What, do you have, like, comprehension issues? The _owner_ has not given consent to the device being locked. The _owner_ is alive, having inherited the device from a dead relative.
It's wrong for companies to build into their devices methods that automatically and effectively brick them when some conditions are met which byass the owner's wishes. It's destruction of property, pure and simple. Are you such a fanboi that you don't see how customers are being screwed? If so I pity you.
It's pretty simple. And yes, I know that it seemed like a good idea at the time to the idiot engineer who came up with this "solution". Lots of ideas seem good until the flaws are discovered.
It's still not the family's problem. I hope they sue.
Smart people however use the CS sorting algorithms, and not some random, changed partway through, invented on the spot method. And that's because smart people know that the classic CS sorting methods have the optimal complexity among all comparison based sorting algorithms. There simply aren't any better methods that take less work, if you're going to compare iterms pairwise. BTW, there's a proof of that statement in Knuth, but this comment is too small to quote it in its entirety.
There's almost always better solutions than violence.
Not always. Violence has a *deterrent* effect, which is worth quite a bit. That's why it's used where it matters, by criminals and by governments and law enforcement. To think that violence has no legitimate role in human society is naive.
Suppose every glasshole gets attacked on sight for wearing them, by vigilantes.That' would have a chilling effect and, ignoring the legality for a moment, would cause the glassholes to stop wearing them in public very quickly. Compare that with the expense and complication of sueing every glasshole on a different technicality, for every instance where they abuse their spying powers. It would clog the court systems, be impossible to do *systematically*, and would lead to a neverending battleground between the 'holes and regular people.
Now deterrence can also be approximated nonviolently - for example, the police could fine glassholes for wearing them in the street. That wouldn't stop people like Oracle's Larry Ellison or Google's Eric Schmidt from doing what they want, but it would deter a large number of people. And yet, ultimately, this still depents on the threat of violence, in this case the legitimate violence that the police are able to use in the pursuit of their duties.
The point is, human societies have a way of regulating the beheviour of individuals, and one of the tools that get used is violence. The world is what it is.